Benchmark: set.has vs. array.includes (random string values)

Script Preparation code:

var a = [
    'height',
    'width',
    'maxHeight',
    'maxWidth',
    'maxHeight',
    'minWidth',
    'color',
    'bg',
    'backgroundColor',
    'opacity',
    'm',
    'mt',
    'mb',
    'mr',
    'mr',
    'mx',
    'my',
    'p',
    'pt',
    'pb',
    'pr',
    'pl',
    'px',
    'py',
    'border',
    'boxShadow',
    'flex',
    'verticalAlign',
    'textAlign',
    'overflow',
    'display',
    'cursor'
];
var b = new Set(a)

Tests:

arr.includes
return a.includes(a[Math.floor(Math.random() * a.length)])
set.has
return b.has(a[Math.floor(Math.random() * a.length)])

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
arr.includes
set.has

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:150.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/150.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 150 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
arr.includes	22218976.0 Ops/sec
set.has	504191744.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided benchmark compares the performance of two JavaScript methods: `array.includes()` and `set.has()`. The test is designed to measure which method is faster when searching for an element in an array or a set, respectively.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Array.includes()**: This method checks if a specified value exists in the array.
2. **Set.has()**: This method checks if a specified value exists in the set.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Array.includes()**:
	+ Pros: widely supported, fast for small arrays, easy to implement.
	+ Cons: can be slow for large arrays (O(n) complexity), may not be suitable for sets or other data structures with unique values.
* **Set.has()**: 
	+ Pros: faster for sets and other data structures with unique values, O(1) complexity on average.
	+ Cons: less widely supported, requires a set data structure.

**Library Used**

The `Set` object is used in the benchmark. A set is an unordered collection of unique values, which makes it suitable for this test case.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None mentioned in this specific test case.

**Other Considerations**

This benchmark is relevant for developers working with JavaScript and may be useful when deciding between `array.includes()` and `set.has()` for performance-critical applications. Additionally, understanding the trade-offs between these two methods can help optimize code for different use cases.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to this test case might include:

1. **Array.prototype.find()**: This method returns the first element in the array that satisfies the provided condition.
2. **Map.has()**: If using a `Map` data structure instead of a set, this method checks if a specified value exists in the map.

These alternatives would require modifications to the benchmark test case and may not directly compare to the original test.

Related benchmarks:

set.has vs. array.includes (random string values) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: arr.includes vs set.has

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

arr.includes

set.has

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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