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
const md5 = '11111111111111111111111111111111'; const sha1 = '1111111111111111111111111111111111111111'; const sha256 = '1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111'; const invalid = '21345'; const size = 10000; const hashLookup = ( () => { const hashes = { 32: 'md5', 64: 'sha256', 40: 'sha1' }; return function( hash ) { return hashes[ hash.length ]; }; } )(); let result; for ( let i = 0; i < size; i++ ) { result = hashLookup(md5); result = hashLookup(sha1); result = hashLookup(sha256); result = hashLookup(invalid); }
hashswitch
let md5 = '11111111111111111111111111111111'; let sha1 = '1111111111111111111111111111111111111111'; let sha256 = '1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111'; let invalid = '21345'; const size = 10000; hashSwitch = function hashSwitch( hash ) { switch( hash.length ) { case 32: { return 'md5'; } case 40: { return 'sha1'; } case 64: { return 'sha256'; } } } let result; for ( let i = 0; i < size; i++ ) { result = hashSwitch(md5); result = hashSwitch(sha1); result = hashSwitch(sha256); result = 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 world of JavaScript microbenchmarks! The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches to hash lookup: `hashLookup` and `hashSwitch`. Both methods are used to determine which hash algorithm (MD5, SHA1, or SHA256) corresponds to a given input string length. **Hash Lookup (hashLookup)** In this approach, an object (`hashes`) is created with predefined hash lengths as keys and corresponding algorithms as values. A function `hashLookup` is then defined to take a hash value as input and return the corresponding algorithm based on the hash length. The pros of using this approach are: * Easy to implement and maintain * Fast lookup time since it's just a simple object lookup However, there are some cons: * Limited scalability due to the hardcoded object structure * May not be suitable for large datasets or dynamic hash lengths **Hash Switch (hashSwitch)** This approach uses a `switch` statement to determine which algorithm corresponds to a given input string length. The pros of this approach are: * More scalable than `hashLookup` since it can handle dynamic hash lengths * Can be easily extended to support additional algorithms However, there are some cons: * Slower performance due to the overhead of the `switch` statement * May require more code maintenance and updates compared to `hashLookup` **Library: None** In both test cases, no external libraries are used. However, it's worth noting that in a real-world scenario, you might want to consider using established hashing libraries like `crypto-js` or `hasher.js` for added functionality and security. **Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax: None** Neither of the two approaches uses any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ES6 syntax. **Benchmark Preparation Code Analysis** The benchmark preparation code consists of defining constants for MD5, SHA1, and SHA256 hashes, as well as an invalid hash value. The `hashLookup` and `hashSwitch` functions are then defined to perform the respective lookups. In both cases, a loop is used to execute the lookup function multiple times (10000 iterations) to gather performance data. **Alternatives** Other approaches for implementing hash lookup could include: * Using an enum or a set data structure to map hash lengths to algorithms * Employing caching mechanisms to improve performance * Utilizing parallel processing or concurrency to speed up the lookup process However, these alternatives might add complexity and may not be suitable for all use cases. Overall, the `hashLookup` approach is simple, easy to understand, and performs well for small-scale applications. The `hashSwitch` approach offers more scalability but comes with a slight performance penalty.
Related benchmarks:
lookup vs hash
lookup vs hash
lookup vs hash
lookup vs hash
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?