Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Object vs. map counter with numeric keys
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
object vs map
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
object
let a = { "100": 1, "101": 2 }; ++a["101"];
map
let b = new Map(); b.set("100", 1); b.set("101", 2); b.set("101", b.get("101") + 1);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
object
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and some pros and cons of different approaches. **Benchmark Definition:** The benchmark definition is not explicitly mentioned in the JSON data, but we can infer it from the individual test cases. There are two main approaches: 1. **Object approach:** The first test case uses an object literal (`let a = { ... }`) to create a counter with numeric keys. 2. **Map approach:** The second test case uses a `Map` object to create a similar counter. **Options Compared:** The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches: 1. **Object counter** 2. **Map counter** These two approaches differ in how they store and update the counter values. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach:** **Object Counter:** Pros: * Simple and easy to understand * Fast access to individual counter values Cons: * Slow updates (incrementing a value stored in an object) * May lead to slower performance due to the overhead of accessing an object property **Map Counter:** Pros: * Fast updates (using `set` and `get` methods on the Map object) * Efficient use of memory for large counters Cons: * More complex than using an object literal * May have higher overhead due to the creation and management of a Map object **Library Used:** None explicitly mentioned in this benchmark, but JavaScript's built-in `Map` object is used. The `Map` object provides an efficient way to store key-value pairs and perform fast lookups and updates. **Special JS Feature or Syntax:** The test cases do not use any special JavaScript features or syntax that requires explanation. **Other Alternatives:** If you wanted to compare the performance of different data structures for counters, some alternatives could include: * Using an array with an offset value (e.g., `let counter = [0];`) * Using a custom implementation with a separate data structure (e.g., a binary tree or hash table) * Using a third-party library that provides optimized counter implementations (e.g., a counter library) However, the current benchmark focuses on comparing the performance of object and Map counters, which are both built-in JavaScript features.
Related benchmarks:
Performance of Object.keys(tree).map(Number) vs for...in
Map has vs get
Array.forEach vs Object.keys().forEach
Map.forEach vs Array.forEach vs Array.from(Map.prototype.values()).forEach
Object.fromEntries vs Map
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?