Benchmark: set.has vs. array.includes vs array.indexOf (numeric values)

Script Preparation code:

var a = [
  8123075259360718,
  2180349503224798,
  6686356311324193,
  362184468266422,
  2306757200330954,
  4532178674851796,
  8970950942018765
];
var b = new Set(a)

Tests:

includes
return a.includes(8123075259360718) ^ a.includes(7516472072139877) ^ a.includes(362184468266422);
lookup
return b.has(8123075259360718) ^ b.has(7516472072139877) ^ b.has(362184468266422);
indexof
return (a.indexOf(8123075259360718) > -1) ^ (a.indexOf(7516472072139877) > -1) ^ (a.indexOf(362184468266422) > -1);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
lookup
indexof

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test case on the MeasureThat.net website. The test case compares three different approaches to check if a specific value exists in an array: using `array.includes()`, `Set` lookup (`b.has()`), and `array.indexOf()`.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is as follows:

* Create an array `a` with six numeric values.
* Create a new `Set` object `b` from the array `a`.

Three individual test cases are defined, each using one of the three approaches to check if three specific values (`8123075259360718`, `7516472072139877`, and `362184468266422`) exist in the set `b` or array `a`. The test cases return a boolean value indicating whether all three values exist.

**Options Compared**

The options compared are:

* **`array.includes()`**: This method checks if a specified value exists in an array. It returns `true` if the value is found, and `false` otherwise.
* **`Set` lookup (`b.has()`)**: This method checks if a specified value exists in a `Set` object. It returns `true` if the value is present, and `false` otherwise.
* **`array.indexOf()`**: This method returns the index of the first occurrence of a specified value in an array. If the value is not found, it returns `-1`.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

* **`array.includes()`**:
	+ Pros: Simple to use, widely supported.
	+ Cons: May be slower than `Set` lookup or `indexOf()` for large arrays, as it scans the array from start to end.
* **`Set` lookup (`b.has()`)**:
	+ Pros: Generally faster than `array.includes()` and can be more efficient for large sets.
	+ Cons: Requires creating a `Set` object, which may incur additional memory overhead. Not all browsers support `Set` objects.
* **`array.indexOf()`**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster than `array.includes()` for small arrays or when using cached results.
	+ Cons: Returns the index of the first occurrence, not just a boolean result. May return `-1` if the value is not found.

**Library and Special JS Features**

The test case uses a `Set` object, which is a built-in JavaScript object that stores unique values. The `b.has()` method is used to perform lookup operations on the set.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are required for this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

Alternative approaches could include:

* Using `array.prototype.includes()` instead of `array.includes()`, which uses an iterator for better performance.
* Using a more modern approach, such as using `Array.from()` and `includes()` in combination with `Set` lookup.
* Using other data structures, such as a `Map` object, to store and retrieve values.

However, these alternatives may not provide significant performance benefits or changes to the benchmark results.

Related benchmarks:

set.has vs. array.includes vs array.indexOf (numeric values) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs lookup vs indexof

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes

lookup

indexof

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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