Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Set vs Object iteration
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Set vs Obj
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Set
let set = new Set(); for (let i = 10000; i < 11000; i++) { set.add(i); } for (let i = 10000; i < 11000; i++) { set.has(i); }
Obj
let set = {}; for (let i = 10000; i < 11000; i++) { set[i] = true; } for (let i = 10000; i < 11000; i++) { Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(set, i); }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Set
Obj
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):
**Overview of the Benchmark** The provided benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using a `Set` data structure and using an object literal (`{}`) with the `hasOwnProperty()` method. **Comparison Options** There are two options being compared: 1. **Using a `Set`**: This approach uses the built-in `Set` data structure in JavaScript, which is implemented as a hash table. The `add()` method is used to add elements to the set, and the `has()` method is used to check if an element is present in the set. 2. **Using an object literal with `hasOwnProperty()`**: This approach uses an object literal (`{}`) and the `hasOwnProperty()` method to store key-value pairs. The `for...in` loop is used to iterate over the keys, and the `hasOwnProperty()` method is used to check if a key is present in the object. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** * **Using a `Set`:** + Pros: - Fast lookups: `has()` method has an average time complexity of O(1), making it very efficient for large datasets. - Memory efficiency: Sets use less memory than objects because they don't store duplicate keys. + Cons: - Limited functionality: Sets are designed for fast lookups and insertions, not for general-purpose data storage or manipulation. * **Using an object literal with `hasOwnProperty()`**: + Pros: - General-purpose data storage: Objects can store arbitrary key-value pairs and support a wide range of methods (e.g., `forEach()`, `forEachKey()`, etc.). + Cons: - Slower lookups: The `hasOwnProperty()` method has an average time complexity of O(1) in most implementations, but it's not as fast as the `has()` method in a Set. - Memory overhead: Objects require more memory than Sets because they store duplicate keys. **Library and Purpose** None of the test cases use a specific library. However, the `Set` data structure is a built-in JavaScript feature that can be used without any additional libraries or imports. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. The test cases only use standard JavaScript syntax and built-in methods. **Other Alternatives** If you were to write your own microbenchmark using a similar approach, you might consider adding additional variations, such as: * Using an `Array` instead of a Set * Using a custom data structure (e.g., a linked list) instead of a Set or object literal * Adding more complex operations (e.g., inserting and deleting elements frequently) * Testing with different browser versions or platforms Keep in mind that the effectiveness of these alternatives would depend on your specific use case and requirements. **Benchmark Preparation Code** The provided `Script Preparation Code` is empty, which means that the benchmark is designed to be run directly without any setup. The `Html Preparation Code` is also empty, suggesting that no HTML setup or cleanup is required for this benchmark.
Related benchmarks:
Object.assign() vs Reflect.set()
Object.setPrototypeOf vs Object literal
Dot property set notation VS Lodash.set (initial attribute existing 2)
Lodash.set VS property assign
new Set vs set.clear()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?