Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
map length
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
check each time vs check once
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
check each time
var map = new Map() for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { if( map.size > 5000) { map = new Map() } map.set(i, Math.random()) }
check once
var map = new Map() for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { map.set(i, Math.random()) } if( map.size > 5000) { map = new Map() }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
check each time
check once
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):
**What is being tested?** MeasureThat.net is testing the performance of JavaScript's `Map` data structure, specifically how it handles resizing and adding elements. The benchmark defines two test cases: 1. "check each time": This test case creates a new `Map` every 5000 iterations. 2. "check once": This test case creates a single `Map` with 10000 elements and then checks its size. **Options compared** The two test cases compare the performance of creating and resizing a `Map`: 1. **"check each time"**: Creates a new `Map` every 5000 iterations. 2. **"check once"**: Creates a single `Map` with 10000 elements. **Pros and cons of each approach** 1. **"check each time"** * Pros: + Reduces memory usage by creating a new `Map` every 5000 iterations, which can be beneficial for systems with limited memory. * Cons: + May result in more overhead due to the repeated creation and resizing of the map. 2. **"check once"** * Pros: + Reduces overhead by only creating a single `Map` and checking its size. * Cons: + Increases memory usage since the same `Map` is used for 10000 iterations. **Library and purpose** There is no library explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, JavaScript's built-in `Map` data structure is being tested. **Special JS feature or syntax** None are mentioned specifically. **Other alternatives** To measure the performance of `Map`, other approaches could be considered: 1. **Creating an array and using `Object.assign()` to resize**: Instead of creating a new `Map`, you could create an array and use `Object.assign()` to add elements, resizing the array as needed. 2. **Using a custom data structure**: Depending on the specific requirements, a custom data structure like a doubly-linked list or a binary search tree could be used to measure performance. 3. **Benchmarking with other libraries or frameworks**: Measure the performance of `Map` using different libraries or frameworks, such as React or Angular, to see how they optimize and handle resizing. Keep in mind that these alternatives would require modifying the benchmark definition and may not directly compare to the original test cases.
Related benchmarks:
multiple map iterations
Lodash Object/Array map vs native
Comparison of three map functions
Map iteration vs Map.values() iteration
Map VS Set by Tonkhao
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?