Benchmark: lookup vs hash - MeasureThat.net

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 ]; }; } )(); 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'; const size = 10000; hashSwitch = function hashSwitch( hash ) { switch( hash.length ) { case 32: { return 'md5'; } case 40: { return 'sha1'; } case 64: { return 'sha256'; } } } 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>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
hashlookup
hashswitch

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/142.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/142.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 142 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
hashlookup	3570.5 Ops/sec
hashswitch	10656.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided benchmark is comparing two approaches to determine the hash function used for a given input string:

1. `hashLookup`:
This approach uses a lookup table (`hashes`) that maps the length of the input hash to the corresponding hash function name (MD5, SHA256, or SHA1). The test code calls the `hashLookup` function with different input hashes and measures its performance.
2. `hashSwitch`:
This approach uses a switch statement to determine the hash function based on the input hash length. It has three cases: 32, 40, and 64 characters, mapping to MD5, SHA1, and SHA256, respectively.

**Options Compared**

The two approaches are being compared in terms of their performance (measured by executions per second).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* `hashLookup`:
	+ Pros: Simple, easy to understand, and efficient for small input hashes.
	+ Cons: May be slower for larger input hashes due to the lookup table overhead.
* `hashSwitch`:
	+ Pros: Can handle longer input hashes more efficiently, as it doesn't rely on a precomputed lookup table.
	+ Cons: More complex, harder to understand, and may have slightly higher performance overhead due to the switch statement.

**Library Used**

None. The test code does not use any external libraries.

**Special JavaScript Features or Syntax**

The benchmark uses the `let` keyword for variable declaration (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) and the `const` keyword for constant declarations (also introduced in ECMAScript 2015). These are modern JavaScript features that were available at the time of the benchmark's creation.

**Other Alternatives**

Other approaches to determine the hash function based on input hash length could include:

* Using a regex pattern to match the input hash against predefined patterns.
* Implementing a custom hash lookup table using a data structure like a trie or an associative array.
* Using a different algorithm, such as a polynomial-based approach, to determine the hash function.

However, these alternatives are not being tested in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

lookup vs hash (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: hashlookup vs hashswitch

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

hashlookup

hashswitch

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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