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: 2 months 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

set.has

504.2M/s

arr.includes

22.2M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ set.has	504,191,744 Ops/sec
arr.includes	22,218,976 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.

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

Comparing performance of: `arr.includes vs set.has`

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go 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):

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

Comparing performance of: arr.includes vs set.has

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go 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):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `arr.includes vs set.has`