Benchmark: Has Objects vs Sets v2

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

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.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between using JavaScript objects (`obj`) and sets (`set`) to store and retrieve data in a loop.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Objects (`obj`)**: In this approach, an empty object `obj` is created and used to store boolean values as keys with `true` as the value. The loop iterates over a range of numbers from 0 to twice the length of the dataset (5000), checking if each number is present in the object using the `in` operator.
2. **Sets (`set`)**: In this approach, an empty set `set` is created and used to store unique values (numbers) as elements. The loop iterates over the same range of numbers, adding each number to the set using the `add()` method.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Objects (`obj`)**:
	+ Pros: Generally faster for small datasets due to JavaScript's property lookup efficiency.
	+ Cons: Less memory-efficient and can lead to slower performance for large datasets.
* **Sets (`set`)**:
	+ Pros: More memory-efficient and provides fast lookups for unique values.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than objects for small datasets, and may require additional memory allocation.

**Library/Module Used**

In this benchmark, the `Set` class from JavaScript's built-in `Map` implementation is used. The `Set` interface is a simple collection of unique values, which provides fast membership testing using the `has()` method.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases.

**Other Considerations**

* Cache performance: Both objects and sets may have cache effects, but the impact might be more significant for objects due to property lookup.
* Memory allocation: Sets are generally more memory-efficient than objects, especially for large datasets.
* Browser behavior: Different browsers might exhibit variations in performance or caching behavior.

**Alternatives**

Other data structures that could be used for comparison include:

1. Arrays: Using arrays as a replacement for sets or objects would likely be slower due to the need for indexing and searching.
2. Linked Lists: Implementing linked lists for both sets and objects would add unnecessary overhead and complexity.
3. Custom data structures: Creating custom data structures that optimize performance for specific use cases could also be compared against objects and sets.

Keep in mind that this benchmark focuses on basic use cases, and optimizing performance for specific applications might require more complex approaches or consideration of additional factors such as parallelization, caching, or database interactions.

Related benchmarks:

Has Objects vs Sets v2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Set vs Obj

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

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):