Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
lookup vs hash
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
Comparing performance of:
hashlookup vs hashswitch
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Guest
Go 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 ]; }; } )(); 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>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
hashlookup
hashswitch
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
10 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
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=620721" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
hashswitch
11K/s
hashlookup
4K/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
hashswitch
10,656 Ops/sec
hashlookup
3,571 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
**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.
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?