Benchmark: indexOf vs map - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var HAYSTACK_COUNT = 50;
var NEEDLE_COUNT = 50;

function hasWithIndexOf(needle, haystack) {
	return haystack.indexOf(needle) !== -1;
}

function hasWithMap(needle, haystackMap) {
	return haystackMap[needle];
}


function prepareMap(haystack) {
	var map = {};
	for (var i=0, len=haystack.length; i<len; ++i) {
    	map[haystack[i]] = true;
    }
    return map;
}
  
         
var haystack = [];
for (var i=0; i<HAYSTACK_COUNT; ++i) {
  	haystack.push('00' + i);
}

var haystackMap = prepareMap(haystack);

Tests:

indexOf
for (var i=0; i<NEEDLE_COUNT; ++i) { hasWithIndexOf('404', haystack); }
map new each pass
var haystackMapLocal = prepareMap(haystack); for (var i=0; i<NEEDLE_COUNT; ++i) { hasWithMap('404', haystackMapLocal); }
map cached
for (var i=0; i<NEEDLE_COUNT; ++i) { hasWithMap('404', haystackMap); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
indexOf
map new each pass
map cached

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.

Let's break down the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark tests two approaches for searching an array: using `Array.prototype.indexOf()` and using a hash map (`Object`). The goal is to compare the performance of these two methods in finding a specific element (the "needle") within the haystack array.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines three functions:

1. `hasWithIndexOf(needle, haystack)`: This function uses `Array.prototype.indexOf()` to search for the `needle` within the `haystack` array.
2. `hasWithMap(needle, haystackMap)`: This function uses a hash map (`Object`) to store the elements of the `haystack` array as keys and values. It then searches for the `needle` within this hash map.
3. `prepareMap(haystack)`: This function creates a hash map from the `haystack` array by iterating over each element and setting it as a key in the hash map.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of three individual test cases:

1. **"indexOf"`**: This test case uses `Array.prototype.indexOf()` to search for the string "404" within the `haystack` array.
2. **"map new each pass"`**: This test case creates a new hash map from the `haystack` array using the `prepareMap()` function, and then searches for the string "404" within this hash map.
3. **"map cached"`**: This test case uses an existing hash map (`haystackMap`) that was created during the benchmark preparation code execution, and searches for the string "404" within it.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. `Array.prototype.indexOf()`:
	* Pros: Simple to implement, easy to understand.
	* Cons: Can be slow if the haystack array is large, as it has to iterate over all elements.
2. Hash Map (`Object`):
	* Pros: Fast lookups, especially for large datasets.
	* Cons: Requires extra memory to store the hash map, and can be complex to implement.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses the `Array.prototype.indexOf()` method, which is a built-in JavaScript function. It also uses an object literal (`Object`) as a hash map.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark that are not widely supported by most modern browsers and environments.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to test other approaches for searching arrays, some alternatives could include:

1. `Array.prototype.includes()`: A more modern alternative to `Array.prototype.indexOf()` that is faster and more efficient.
2. Using a library like Lodash's `indexOf` function or Ramda's `find` function.
3. Implementing a custom binary search algorithm for large arrays.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements of your project, such as performance, memory usage, and code complexity.

Related benchmarks:

indexOf vs map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: indexOf vs map new each pass vs map cached

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

indexOf

map new each pass

map cached

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):