Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
lookup vs hash
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
hashlookup vs hashswitch
Created:
8 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
hashlookup
let md5 = '11111111111111111111111111111111'; let sha1 = '1111111111111111111111111111111111111111'; let sha256 = '1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111'; let invalid = '21345'; const hashLookup = ( () => { const hashes = { 32: 'md5', 64: 'sha256', 40: 'sha1' }; return function( hash ) { return hashes[ hash.length ]; }; } )(); const size = 10000; for (let i = 0; i < size; i++){ hashLookup(md5); hashLookup(sha1); hashLookup(sha256); hashLookup(invalid); }
hashswitch
let md5 = '11111111111111111111111111111111'; let sha1 = '1111111111111111111111111111111111111111'; let sha256 = '1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111'; let invalid = '21345'; hashSwitch = function hashSwitch( hash ) { switch( hash.length ) { case 32: { return 'md5'; } case 40: { return 'sha1'; } case 64: { return 'sha256'; } } } const size = 10000; for (let i = 0; i < size; i++){ hashSwitch(md5); hashSwitch(sha1); hashSwitch(sha256); hashSwitch(invalid); }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
hashlookup
hashswitch
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 dive into the benchmark and explain what is being tested. **Overview** The provided JSON represents a benchmark test that compares two approaches to determine which one is more efficient for hash lookups in JavaScript. The test consists of two individual test cases: `hashlookup` and `hashswitch`. **What is being tested?** In both test cases, the code iterates 10,000 times and calls a function with different length hashes (MD5, SHA-1, and SHA-256) as arguments. The goal is to measure which approach results in fewer executions per second. **Approach 1: `hashLookup`** This approach uses an object with hash lengths as keys and corresponding hash algorithms as values. For each iteration, the code looks up the hash algorithm using the `hashes[hash.length]` syntax. Pros: * Easy to read and maintain * No overhead of explicit conditional statements or loops Cons: * May result in slower performance due to object lookups **Approach 2: `hashSwitch`** This approach uses a switch statement with explicit conditional blocks for each hash length. For each iteration, the code calls the `hashSwitch` function and passes the hash as an argument. Pros: * Can be faster since it avoids object lookups * Can take advantage of compiler optimizations Cons: * More verbose and harder to read * May result in slower performance due to switch statement overhead **Library usage** Neither test case uses any external libraries. The `hashes` object is defined within the scope of each test case. **Special JS feature or syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these benchmark tests. **Other alternatives** If you were to modify or extend this benchmark, you could consider additional approaches, such as: 1. Using a hash map (e.g., `Map`) instead of an object for the `hashes` lookup. 2. Adding more hash algorithms and lengths to the `hashes` object. 3. Using a different data structure, like an array, to store the hash algorithms. Keep in mind that these alternatives might affect the readability, maintainability, and performance characteristics of the benchmark tests.
Related benchmarks:
lookup vs hash
lookup vs hash
lookup vs hash
lookup vs hash
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?