Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
keys VS map
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
map vs keys
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
map
const myObj = {one:1,two:2,three:3} const myMap = new Map(Object.entries(myObj)) myMap.has("one")
keys
const myObj = {one:1,two:2,three:3} const keys = Object.keys(myObj) keys.includes("one")
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
map
keys
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 benchmarking setup and explain what's being tested, compared, and discussed. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is defined by two test cases: 1. `keys VS map` 2. `map` (seems to be a typo, and it should match `keys VS map`) However, upon closer inspection, the "Test Name" field in the individual test cases seems to have incorrect values. It appears that the actual test name is indeed `keys VS map`. Let's proceed with this interpretation. **What's being tested** The benchmark tests two approaches for checking if a specific key exists in an object: 1. **Using the `Object.keys()` method**: This approach iterates over the keys of the object and checks if the target key (`"one"`) is included. 2. **Using the `Map` data structure**: This approach creates a `Map` instance from the object's entries, has the key `"one"` in the map, and then checks for its existence. **Options compared** The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches: Pros and Cons: * Using `Object.keys()`: + Pros: Easy to implement, straightforward logic. + Cons: May be slower due to iteration overhead, especially for large objects. * Using `Map`: + Pros: Can be faster for lookups, as maps are optimized for this use case. However, creating a map might have additional overhead compared to using `Object.keys()`. + Cons: Requires more memory to create the map and iterate over its entries. **Other considerations** * The benchmark uses a simple object with a single key-value pair (`{one:1,two:2,three:3}`). This might not accurately represent real-world scenarios, where objects often have many keys. * There's no consideration for potential edge cases like empty objects or null inputs. **Library and special JS features** The benchmark does not use any external libraries. However, it leverages some specific JavaScript features: * The `Map` data structure is used, which was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). * The `Object.keys()` method is used to iterate over the object's keys, which is also part of ES6. **Alternative approaches** Other alternatives for checking if a key exists in an object include: 1. Using the `in` operator directly on the object: `if ("one" in myObj)`. 2. Using the `hasOwnProperty()` method: `myObj.hasOwnProperty("one")`. 3. Using a library like Lodash's `includes()` function (not used in this benchmark). These alternatives might have varying performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the approaches tested in this benchmark. I hope this explanation helps!
Related benchmarks:
Map has vs get
Array from() vs Map.keys()
Array from() vs Map.keys() vs Map.values() vs spread
Map vs WeakMap (real-world) Performance
Object.fromEntries vs Map
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?