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
const md5 = '11111111111111111111111111111111'; const sha1 = '1111111111111111111111111111111111111111'; const sha256 = '1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111'; const invalid = '21345'; const size = 10000; const hashLookup = ( () => { var md5 = 'md5' var sha256 = 'sha256' var sha1 = 'sha1' 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); }

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:

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition specifies two test cases, "hashlookup" and "hashswitch", which are used to compare the performance of two approaches: hash lookup using a predefined object vs. dynamic variable declarations.

**Hash Lookup Approach (Predefined Object)**

In this approach, a predefined object `hashes` is created with hardcoded values:
```javascript
const hashes = {
  32: 'md5',
  64: 'sha256',
  40: 'sha1'
}
```
The `hashLookup` function uses this object to look up the hash value based on the input string's length. For example, when the input is `'11111111111111111111111111111111'`, which has a length of 32, it returns `'md5'`.

**Hash Lookup Approach (Dynamic Variable Declarations)**

In this approach, three variables `md5`, `sha256`, and `sha1` are declared with hardcoded values:
```javascript
var md5 = 'md5'
var sha256 = 'sha256'
var sha1 = 'sha1'
```
The `hashLookup` function uses these variables to look up the hash value based on the input string's length. This approach is similar to the first one, but with dynamic variable declarations.

**Pros and Cons**

**Predefined Object Approach:**

Pros:

* Easier to maintain and update the hardcoded values.
* Less memory usage compared to dynamic variable declarations.

Cons:

* Less flexible and harder to extend or modify dynamically.

**Dynamic Variable Declarations Approach:**

Pros:

* More flexible and easier to extend or modify dynamically.
* Can be more efficient if the variables are only needed for a short duration.

Cons:

* More memory-intensive due to the creation of multiple variables.
* Harder to maintain and update the hardcoded values.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark is testing the performance difference between these two approaches, which may vary depending on the specific use case and requirements.
* The test cases are relatively simple, with only a single input string used in each iteration. More complex test cases might reveal different performance characteristics.

**Library Used (if any)**

None of the provided code snippets use any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript implementations or frameworks might optimize hash lookup operations using built-in functions like `Object.keys()` or `Array.prototype.indexOf()`, which are not explicitly used in these examples.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None mentioned. The benchmark uses standard JavaScript syntax and features.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to hash lookup, some options include:

* Using a more efficient hashing algorithm, such as `Crypto-JS` or `webcrypto`.
* Implementing a caching mechanism to store frequently accessed hashes.
* Using a lookup table or an array of precomputed values instead of dynamic variable declarations.
* Leveraging modern JavaScript features like `Symbol` or `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call()` for more efficient hash lookups.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might introduce additional complexity, memory usage, or performance trade-offs, depending on the specific requirements and constraints of your use case.

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

No previous run results

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