Benchmark: Map vs Object GetAndSet2

Script Preparation code:

var map = new Map();
var obj = {};

map.set('a', 5);
obj['a'] = 5;

var i = 0, count = 1000, a;

Tests:

Map lookup
let x; for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { map.set('a'+i, i); } for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { x=map.get('a'+i); }
Obj lookup
let y; for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { obj['a'+i]=i; } for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { y=obj['a'+i]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Map lookup
Obj lookup

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 JSON data for the Map vs Object GetAndSet2 benchmark.

**Benchmark Description**

The benchmark tests two approaches to look up and set values in JavaScript:

1. **Map**: Using a `Map` object, which is a built-in JavaScript data structure that stores key-value pairs.
2. **Object**: Using an object literal (`{}`), where each property is associated with a value.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches for the following operations:

* Lookup: Retrieving a value from the map or object using its key.
* Set: Adding a new key-value pair to the map or object.

**Pros and Cons**

### Map

Pros:

* **Efficient lookups**: Maps provide fast lookups, with an average time complexity of O(1), making them suitable for large datasets.
* **Flexible data structure**: Maps can store any type of data as values.

Cons:

* **Memory overhead**: Maps require additional memory to store the key-value pairs.
* **Slow initialization**: Creating a new map requires more code and runtime operations compared to creating an object literal.

### Object

Pros:

* **Simple syntax**: Objects are easy to create and work with, requiring minimal code and runtime operations.
* **Wide browser support**: All modern browsers support objects.

Cons:

* **Slow lookups**: Object lookups have an average time complexity of O(n), making them less efficient than maps for large datasets.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses the `Map` object as a built-in JavaScript data structure. No additional libraries are required.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided JSON data. The benchmark only uses standard JavaScript syntax and features, such as loops, literals, and object property access.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or optimizations for this benchmark, consider the following options:

* **IndexedDB**: For storing large amounts of structured data, IndexedDB is a suitable alternative to maps. It provides an object store that can be used as a replacement for a map.
* **Array-based lookup**: Instead of using objects or maps, you could use arrays and indexing to achieve similar results. This approach would eliminate the need for dynamic key-value pair management.
* **Native WebAssembly (WASM)**: If you're targeting WebAssembly platforms like wasmjs.org, you can explore WASM modules that provide efficient map-like data structures.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce new dependencies or require additional configuration, and their performance might vary compared to the original benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Map vs Object GetAndSet2 (version: 0)

Lookup and set of map vs object 2

Comparing performance of: Map lookup vs Obj lookup

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Map lookup

Obj lookup

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):