Benchmark: nsdosdosjfdoisjdf

Script Preparation code:

var map = new Map()
var array2 = new Array(150)
var del = false;
for (var i = 0; i < 100; i ++) {
var insert = Math.random();
  map.set(i,insert)
  if (i == 50) del = insert;
  array2.push(insert)
}
var results = 0;

Tests:

map delete
results = map.get(i)
Alloc delete
for (var i = 0; i < array2.length; i ++) { if (i == 50) { results = array2[i] break; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
map delete
Alloc delete

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.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark created on the MeasureThat.net website. The benchmark measures the performance of two different approaches: accessing an element in a Map using its key (`map.delete`) and iterating through an array to find a specific value (`Alloc delete`).

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Map Access**: `map.get(i)`
2. **Array Iteration**: `for (var i = 0; i < array2.length; i ++) { ... }`

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Map Access:**

Pros:

* Fast lookups in Maps, as they use a hash table for storage.
* Can be more efficient than iterating through arrays, especially for large datasets.

Cons:

* Requires the key to be present in the Map. If not found, it will return `undefined`, which might not be desirable.
* May have additional overhead due to the lookup operation.

**Array Iteration:**

Pros:

* Does not require the element to be present in the array.
* Can be more predictable and easier to understand for some developers.

Cons:

* Iterating through arrays can be slower than accessing elements directly in a Map, especially for large datasets.
* May have additional overhead due to the iteration loop.

**Library:**

The benchmark uses the `Map` data structure, which is a built-in JavaScript object that stores key-value pairs. The purpose of using a `Map` is to demonstrate fast lookups and access times, as it provides an efficient way to store and retrieve data.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

None mentioned in the provided code snippet.

**Other Alternatives:**

For similar benchmarks, you can explore other approaches:

* Using `Set` data structure for faster membership testing.
* Utilizing `sparse arrays` or ` typed arrays` for optimized array operations.
* Implementing custom hash functions or algorithms for efficient lookups.
* Comparing the performance of different JavaScript engines or compilers.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided script preparation code initializes:

1. A new Map (`map`) with 100 entries, where each entry has a random value.
2. A new array (`array2`) with 150 elements, all initialized to random values.
3. A flag `del` set to `false`.
4. A loop that iterates 100 times, inserting random values into the Map and pushing them onto the array.
5. When `i == 50`, sets `insert` (a value from the Map) to `del`.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **Map Delete**: Measures the performance of accessing an element in the Map using its key (`map.get(i)`).
2. **Alloc Delete**: Measures the performance of iterating through the array to find a specific value (`array2[i]`) when `i == 50`.

The benchmark results show that the Map Access approach is significantly faster than the Array Iteration approach, with an execution rate of approximately 2906.72 executions per second for Map Delete and 207.89 executions per second for Alloc Delete.

Related benchmarks:

nsdosdosjfdoisjdf (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: map delete vs Alloc delete

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

map delete

Alloc delete

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):