Benchmark: Tuple vs record - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Tuple
const ITEMS = 5000; const tuples = [] for( var i = 0; i < ITEMS; i++ ){ tuples.push([1,i]); } let sum = 0; for( const tuple of tuples){ sum += tuple[0]; } if( sum !== ITEMS ) { console.log("FAIL!") }
Record
const ITEMS = 5000; const tuples = [] for( var i = 0; i < ITEMS; i++ ){ tuples.push({start:1,end:i}); } let sum = 0; for( const tuple of tuples){ sum += tuple.start; } if( sum !== ITEMS ) { console.log("FAIL!") }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Tuple
Record

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:147.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/147.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 147 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Tuple	20941.9 Ops/sec
Record	26369.2 Ops/sec

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's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two approaches to store and iterate over data:

1. **Tuple**: A tuple is an immutable, ordered collection of values that cannot be changed after creation. In JavaScript, tuples are not a built-in data structure, but we can use arrays with a specific syntax (e.g., `[value1, value2]`) to mimic them.
2. **Record**: A record is an object with named properties, where each property has a key-value pair.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Using an array of tuples (`[1, i]`) as the data structure
* Using an array of objects with named properties ( `{start: 1, end: i} `) as the data structure

**Pros and cons of each approach**

**Tuple approach**

Pros:

* More concise syntax for creating the data structure
* Can be more efficient in terms of memory allocation and garbage collection

Cons:

* Tuples are immutable, which can make it harder to modify or update individual values
* May require additional logic to handle mutable parts of the data

**Record approach**

Pros:

* Easier to understand and work with, as each property has a specific name
* Can be more readable and maintainable code

Cons:

* More verbose syntax for creating the data structure
* May incur overhead due to object creation and lookup

**Other considerations**

When working with arrays of tuples or objects, consider the following:

* **Indexing**: When iterating over an array of tuples, you'll need to access individual elements using square brackets (`[0]`, `[1]`). For arrays of objects, you can use dot notation (e.g., `tuple.start`).
* **Mutability**: As mentioned earlier, tuples are immutable. If you need to modify individual values, consider using objects instead.

**Library usage**

The benchmark uses the `console` object, which is a built-in part of the JavaScript runtime environment. It provides methods for logging messages, such as `console.log()` and `console.error()`.

No external libraries are used in this benchmark.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two approaches to data structure implementation.

Now that we've explored the benchmark, here are some alternative approaches you could consider:

* Using `Set` or `Map` data structures for iterating over unique values
* Implementing a custom data structure using classes and prototypes
* Using libraries like Lodash or Ramda for functional programming and data manipulation

Keep in mind that the choice of data structure depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

Related benchmarks:

Tuple vs record (version: 0)

Two element tuple vs two property object

Comparing performance of: Tuple vs Record

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Tuple

Record

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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