Benchmark: Has Objects vs Sets

Script Preparation code:

const set = new Set();
const obj = {};

const length = 5000;

for (let i = 0; i < length; i++) {
  set.add(i);
  obj[i] = true;
}

Tests:

Set
let bool; for (let i = 0; i < length * 2; i++) { bool = set.has(i); }
Obj
let bool; for (let i = 0; i < length * 2; i++) { bool = obj[i]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Set
Obj

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.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on the MeasureThat.net website. The benchmark tests two approaches: using a Set data structure and using an object.

**Options being compared:**

1. Using a Set data structure
2. Using an object (specifically, an object with numeric keys)

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

Using a Set data structure:

Pros:

* Sets are optimized for fast membership testing, making them suitable for large datasets.
* They use less memory than objects when storing unique values.

Cons:

* Sets do not allow direct indexing like objects, which can impact performance in certain scenarios.
* When using a Set, you need to convert the value to a string or number before adding it, which can be slower than simply assigning a value to an object key.

Using an object (specifically, an object with numeric keys):

Pros:

* Objects allow direct indexing, making them suitable for large datasets where you need to access values by index.
* Assigning a value to an object key is generally faster than adding an element to a Set.

Cons:

* Objects use more memory than Sets when storing unique values.
* Membership testing in objects can be slower than in Sets due to the need to traverse the object's keys and values.

**Library usage:**

In this benchmark, no libraries are used explicitly. However, it's worth noting that the Set data structure is a native JavaScript built-in, while objects require the use of the `in` operator or bracket notation to access properties.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

None mentioned in the provided JSON.

**Benchmark preparation code analysis:**

The script preparation code creates a Set and an object, both with 5000 elements. The script then populates these data structures by iterating over a range of numbers and adding each number to the Set and assigning it as a key-value pair in the object.

The HTML preparation code is empty, which suggests that this benchmark does not rely on any specific HTML or DOM-related factors.

**Other alternatives:**

1. Using an array instead of a Set or object.
2. Using other data structures like Maps (JavaScript's native Map implementation) or custom implementations like hash tables.
3. Using different indexing methods, such as using `Math.random()` to generate random indices for elements in the Set or object.

Keep in mind that the specific alternatives will depend on the requirements and constraints of your use case.

Related benchmarks:

Has Objects vs Sets (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Set vs Obj

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Set

Obj

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):