Benchmark: IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash includes for string

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var array = 'bananasausagejesus'

Tests:

IndexOf
array.indexOf('sausage') !== -1
Includes
array.includes('sausage')
lodash
_.includes(array, 'sausage')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
IndexOf
Includes
lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 132 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Includes

76.4M/s

IndexOf

72.1M/s

lodash

49.7M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Includes	76,355,080 Ops/sec
IndexOf	72,100,096 Ops/sec
lodash	49,683,728 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares three methods for checking if a string exists within an array:

1. `array.indexOf('sausage') !== -1`
2. `array.includes('sausage')`
3. `_.includes(array, 'sausage')` (using the Lodash library)

**Options Being Compared**

Here's what each option is doing:

* **Option 1: `indexOf` method**
	+ This method returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value (`'sausage'`) in the array. If the value is not found, it returns `-1`.
	+ Pros: simple and widely supported.
	+ Cons: can be slower than other options, especially for large arrays, since it has to iterate through the entire array to find a match.
* **Option 2: `includes` method**
	+ This method returns a boolean indicating whether the specified value (`'sausage'`) exists in the array.
	+ Pros: more concise and readable than `indexOf`, and can be faster for large arrays since it uses a optimized implementation.
	+ Cons: not all browsers support this method, so it may not work in older or less modern environments.
* **Option 3: `_.includes` method (using Lodash)**
	+ This method returns a boolean indicating whether the specified value (`'sausage'`) exists in the array.
	+ Pros: highly optimized and widely supported, thanks to its use of native methods and ES6 features.
	+ Cons: requires including the Lodash library, which may add overhead for some users.

**Library Used**

The `_.includes` method is using the Lodash library, which provides a comprehensive set of utility functions for JavaScript. Lodash is widely used in web development and is known for its performance and reliability.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing three well-established methods for string existence checks.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* **Array.prototype.find**: This method returns the first element of the array that satisfies the provided testing function.
* **String.indexOf() + Array.includes()` : This approach combines the `indexOf` method on strings with the `includes` method on arrays. While it may seem like an obvious combination, it's not always the most efficient or readable solution.
* **For loop**: You could also use a simple for loop to iterate through the array and check each element individually. However, this approach would likely be slower than using the built-in methods provided by modern JavaScript engines.

Overall, the benchmark is providing valuable insights into the performance characteristics of different string existence checks in modern web browsers. By comparing three well-established methods, it's helping users understand the trade-offs between readability, maintainability, and raw performance.

IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash includes for string (version: 0)

Banana

Comparing performance of: `IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash`

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

IndexOf

Includes

lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash includes for string (version: 0)

Banana

Comparing performance of: IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

IndexOf

Includes

lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash`