Benchmark: map vs object - key access 4

Script Preparation code:

var items = Array.from(Array(1000), (_, x) => ({
    key: x,
    value: x * 10
}));

var objContainer = {};
var mapContainer = new Map();

for (let i = 10000; i >= 0; i--) {
    const index = Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000);
    const item = items[index];
    objContainer[item.key] = item;
    mapContainer.set(item.key, item)
}

Tests:

Object access
items.forEach(item => objContainer[item.value])
Map get
items.forEach(item => mapContainer.get(item.value))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object access
Map get

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:140.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/140.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 140 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Object access	130282.2 Ops/sec
Map get	74520.1 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll explain the benchmark and its options in detail.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches: accessing an object by key using dot notation (`objContainer[item.key]`) versus accessing an object from a Map (a built-in JavaScript data structure) using the `get()` method. The benchmark is run on a large dataset of 10,000 items with random values.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of two test cases:

1. **Object access**: This test case uses the dot notation (`objContainer[item.value]`) to access objects in an array-like object (`objContainer`).
2. **Map get**: This test case uses the `get()` method to retrieve values from a Map (`mapContainer`).

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

* Accessing an object by key using dot notation (`objContainer[item.key]`)
* Accessing an object from a Map using the `get()` method (`mapContainer.get(item.value)`)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Object access (dot notation)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Wide browser support and compatibility.
		+ Simple to implement and understand.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower for large datasets due to the overhead of string lookups.
		+ May lead to more memory usage due to the creation of intermediate objects.
2. **Map get**:
	* Pros:
		+ Generally faster than dot notation, especially for large datasets.
		+ More efficient in terms of memory usage since it doesn't create intermediate objects.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be supported by older browsers or those with limited JavaScript engines.

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses the built-in `Map` data structure and arrays (specifically, `Array.from()` and `Array`) without any external libraries.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. However, it relies on built-in browser support for `Map`, `get()`, and `Array` methods.

**Other Alternatives**

If the benchmark were to compare other approaches, alternatives could include:

* Accessing an object using a library like Lodash (`_.at()`) or Underscore.js (`_.at_()`).
* Using a different data structure, such as a WeakMap for caching.
* Utilizing WebAssembly (WASM) for optimized JavaScript performance.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternatives would depend on the specific requirements and constraints of the benchmark.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided script preparation code initializes two objects: `objContainer` and `mapContainer`, both empty, and creates an array of 10,000 items with random values. It then populates these containers with the same data using a loop.

Related benchmarks:

map vs object - key access 4 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object access vs Map get

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object access

Map get

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):