Benchmark: indexOf vs map - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function hasWithIndexOf(needle, haystack) {
	return haystack.indexOf(needle) !== -1;
}

function hasWithMap(needle, haystack) {
	var map = {};
	haystack.forEach(item => map[item] = true);
	return map[needle];
}
                     
var testArray = ['001', '002', '003', '004', '005', '006', '007', '008', '009', '010'];

Tests:

indexOf
for (var i=0; i<100; ++i) { hasWithIndexOf('000', testArray); }
map
for (var i=0; i<100; ++i) { hasWithMap('000', testArray); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
indexOf
map

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 help explain the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test compares the performance of two approaches: `indexOf` and `map`. The goal is to find the string `'000'` within an array of strings `testArray`.

**Options Compared**

There are two options compared:

1. **IndexOf**: This method uses the `indexOf()` function, which searches for a substring in a given array. It returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value, or -1 if it's not found.
2. **Map**: This approach creates an empty object (`map`) and iterates over the `testArray` using `forEach()`. For each item, it sets a property in the `map` object with the item as the key. Finally, it checks if the value associated with the key `'000'` exists in the `map` object.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **IndexOf**: Pros:
	* Faster lookup time since it uses a hash table-like data structure.
	* More efficient for large datasets.
	* Often implemented in native code, making it faster.
Cons:
	* May not work correctly if the array is sorted or has duplicate values.
2. **Map**: Pros:
	* Works with any type of data, including strings and numbers.
	* Handles duplicates and sorting without issues.
Cons:
	* Slower lookup time due to the overhead of creating an object and iterating over it.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, no external library is used beyond JavaScript's built-in `indexOf()` function.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code is straightforward JavaScript.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to implement a similar benchmark, you could consider using other approaches:

1. **Regex**: Using regular expressions (regex) can be faster than `indexOf()` for certain use cases.
2. **Binary Search**: For sorted arrays, binary search can be an efficient way to find a value.
3. **Hash Table**: Implementing a custom hash table data structure could potentially outperform both `indexOf()` and the `map` approach.

Keep in mind that the best approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your use case.

Let me know if you'd like further clarification or have any questions!

Related benchmarks:

indexOf vs map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: indexOf vs map

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

indexOf

map

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):