Benchmark: Or vs Includes Test

Script Preparation code:

let a = [1,2]
function returnOrInvalid() {
	return a[0] == 3 || a[1] == 3
}
function returnOrValid() {
	return a[0] == 2 || a[1] == 2
}
function returnIncludesInvalid() {
	return a.includes(3)
}
function returnIncludesValid() {
	return a.includes(2)
}

Tests:

returnOrInvalid
returnOrInvalid()
returnOrValid
returnOrValid()
returnIncludesInvalid
returnIncludesInvalid()
returnIncludesValid
returnIncludesValid()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
returnOrInvalid
returnOrValid
returnIncludesInvalid
returnIncludesValid

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.

I'd be happy to explain the provided benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test compares two approaches for comparing values in an array:

1. `or` (or, aka loose comparison) using the `==` operator.
2. `includes` method of the `Array` prototype.

**What is being tested?**

* The speed difference between these two approaches when checking if a specific value exists in an array.

**Options Compared**

The test compares the following options:

1. **Or Approach**: Using the loose comparison operator (`==`) to check if a value exists in the array.
2. **Includes Method**: Using the `includes()` method of the Array prototype to check if a value exists in the array.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### Or Approach (Loose Comparison)

Pros:

* Easy to understand and implement.
* Well-supported by most JavaScript engines.

Cons:

* Not as efficient as the `includes` method, especially for large arrays.
* Can lead to unexpected results due to type coercion or cultural differences in comparison rules.

**Includes Method**

Pros:

* More efficient than the or approach for large arrays.
* Provides a clear and consistent way to check for array membership.

Cons:

* May be slower for small arrays due to the overhead of the `includes` method.
* May not work as expected if the array contains non-array values (e.g., objects).

**Other Considerations**

* The test assumes that the input array is populated with primitive values only. If the array may contain object references, the results may be different.
* The test does not account for edge cases like null or undefined values in the comparison.

**Library Usage**

The `includes` method uses the built-in `Array.prototype.includes()` method, which is a part of the ECMAScript standard and supported by most modern JavaScript engines.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None mentioned explicitly in the provided benchmark. However, it's worth noting that modern JavaScript engines support various optimizations and techniques to improve performance, such as:

* Array methods (e.g., `Array.prototype.includes()`)
* Caching and memoization
* Use of native WebAssembly (WASM) for performance-critical code

**Alternatives**

Other approaches for checking array membership include:

1. Using a custom implementation of the `includes` method.
2. Utilizing bitwise operations or regular expressions to perform membership checks.
3. Employing more advanced techniques like parallel processing or GPU acceleration (for high-performance applications).

These alternatives may offer better performance but are often more complex and less readable than the built-in `includes` method.

Please let me know if you have any further questions!

Related benchmarks:

Or vs Includes Test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: returnOrInvalid vs returnOrValid vs returnIncludesInvalid vs returnIncludesValid

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

returnOrInvalid

returnOrValid

returnIncludesInvalid

returnIncludesValid

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):