Benchmark: Sparse Array Vs. Object,Map,Set, Number Indexes

Script Preparation code:

var iterations =100000;
var obj = {};
var arr = [];
var map = new Map();
var set = new Set();
var setLengthArr = new Array(iterations);
var typedArray = new Uint32Array(iterations);

Tests:

Object
for(let i=0;i<iterations;i+=10){ obj[i]=Math.floor(Math.random()*iterations); obj[i+1]=obj[i]+1; }
Array
for(let i=0;i<iterations;i+=10){ arr[i]=Math.floor(Math.random()*iterations); arr[i+1]= arr[i]+1; }
Set Length Array
for(let i=0;i<iterations;i+=10){ setLengthArr[i]=Math.floor(Math.random()*iterations); setLengthArr[i+1] = setLengthArr[i]+1; }
TypedArray
for(let i=0;i<iterations;i+=10){ typedArray[i]=Math.floor(Math.random()*iterations); typedArray[i+1]= typedArray[i]+1; }
map
for(let i=0;i<iterations;i+=10){ map.set(i,Math.floor(Math.random()*iterations)); map.set(i+1,map.get(i)+1) }
set
for(let i=0;i<iterations;i+=10){ set.add(Math.floor(Math.random()*iterations)); set.add(set.has(i+1)) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object
Array
Set Length Array
TypedArray
map
set

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 135 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Object	4020.4 Ops/sec
Array	5093.9 Ops/sec
Set Length Array	5577.1 Ops/sec
TypedArray	5556.9 Ops/sec
map	1425.7 Ops/sec
set	1081.4 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and its various components, explaining what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of different data structures in JavaScript:

1. Object
2. Array
3. Set Length Array (a custom array-like structure)
4. TypedArray
5. Map
6. Set

Each test case performs a similar operation: assigning a random value to an index and then incrementing it by 1.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of each data structure in the following scenarios:

* Assigning a random value to an index: Object, Array, Set Length Array, TypedArray, Map, and Set
* Incrementing the assigned value by 1: Object, Array, Set Length Array, TypedArray, Map

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief overview of each data structure's performance characteristics:

* **Object**: Objects are slow due to their dynamic nature. They require creating a new property for each assignment, which incurs additional overhead.
	+ Pros: Easy to implement, flexible
	+ Cons: Slow, may lead to memory issues if not used carefully
* **Array**: Arrays are generally faster than objects but still incur some overhead due to indexing and bounds checking.
	+ Pros: Fast, efficient, well-supported in most browsers
	+ Cons: Less flexible than objects, limited methods
* **Set Length Array (Custom)**: This is a custom array-like structure that's not part of the standard JavaScript API. Its performance is comparable to arrays but may have issues with edge cases.
	+ Pros: Fast, efficient, can be customized for specific use cases
	+ Cons: Not widely supported, requires manual implementation
* **TypedArray**: Typed arrays are a subset of arrays optimized for specific data types (e.g., `Uint32Array`). They're generally faster than regular arrays but may require additional setup.
	+ Pros: Fast, efficient, optimized for specific use cases
	+ Cons: Less flexible than regular arrays, requires additional setup
* **Map**: Maps are similar to objects but provide a more efficient way of storing key-value pairs. They're fast and efficient but may incur some overhead due to their dynamic nature.
	+ Pros: Fast, efficient, provides key-value pair functionality
	+ Cons: Less flexible than objects, may lead to memory issues if not used carefully
* **Set**: Sets are a collection of unique values. They're generally faster than arrays for insertion and lookup operations but may incur some overhead due to their dynamic nature.
	+ Pros: Fast, efficient, provides fast lookup and insertion operations
	+ Cons: Less flexible than arrays, limited methods

**Library/Feature Usage**

* None mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, some of the data structures used (e.g., Maps) rely on JavaScript's built-in `Map` and `Set` types, which were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for testing performance include:

* Using a different programming language or framework
* Implementing a custom data structure from scratch
* Using a benchmarking library like WebPageTest or JSMassive
* Utilizing cloud-based benchmarking services

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative will depend on the specific requirements and goals of your project.

Related benchmarks:

Sparse Array Vs. Object,Map,Set, Number Indexes (version: 4)

Comparing performance of: Object vs Array vs Set Length Array vs TypedArray vs map vs set

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Object

Array

Set Length Array

TypedArray

map

set

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):