Benchmark: string map vs. for search with sharded array small N

Script Preparation code:

globalThis.map = []
globalThis.objArr = []

for (let i = 0; i < 20; i++) {
  	if (!map[`thing-${String(i)}`]) map[`thing-${String(i)}`] = []
    map[`thing-${String(i)}`][String(i)] = { i }
    objArr.push({ i })
}

Tests:

string map
const v = map['thing-5']['5'] console.log(v) delete map['thing-5']['5']
find
for (let i = objArr.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) { const v = objArr[i] if (v.i === 5) { objArr.splice(i, 1) console.log(v) return v } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
string map
find

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 benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The benchmark is comparing two approaches to search for a specific value in an array:

1. **String Map**: This approach uses a JavaScript object (`map`) with string keys to store values, where each key represents an element from the array.
2. **Find with Sharded Array**: This approach uses the `find` method on an array (`objArr`) to search for a specific value.

**Options Compared:**

The benchmark is comparing these two options:

* String Map (using JavaScript object)
* Find with Sharded Array (using JavaScript array's built-in `find` method)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **String Map:**
	* Pros:
		+ O(1) lookups, since we can directly access the key using bracket notation.
		+ Can be more memory-efficient, especially for large datasets.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires manual handling of key generation and storage.
		+ May lead to slower initial setup due to object creation.
2. **Find with Sharded Array:**
	* Pros:
		+ Faster execution time, since the `find` method is optimized for performance.
		+ Easier to implement and maintain, as it leverages the built-in array method.
	* Cons:
		+ O(n) lookups, since we have to iterate through the entire array.

**Library Used:**
In this benchmark, no specific library is used beyond what comes with JavaScript. However, if we consider the `map` object and the `Array.prototype.find` method as part of the language, then no external libraries are necessary.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
The test case uses a modern JavaScript feature called **template literals**, which allows for string interpolation using backticks (`). This feature is not specific to this benchmark but is used in the script preparation code to generate keys for the `map` object.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you were looking for alternative approaches, some options could be:

* Using a different data structure, such as an indexed array or a hash table.
* Implementing a custom search algorithm that leverages caching, indexing, or other optimization techniques.
* Using a third-party library or framework specifically designed for performance benchmarking.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely introduce additional complexity and may not always outperform the baseline approaches (string map and find with sharded array).

Related benchmarks:

string map vs. for search with sharded array small N (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: string map vs find

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

string map

find

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):