Benchmark: Map vs Object large

Script Preparation code:

var map = new Map();
var obj = {
	"items":
		{
			"item":
				[
					{
						"id": "0001",
						"type": "donut",
						"name": "Cake",
						"ppu": 0.55,
						"batters":
							{
								"batter":
									[
										{ "id": "1001", "type": "Regular" },
										{ "id": "1002", "type": "Chocolate" },
										{ "id": "1003", "type": "Blueberry" },
										{ "id": "1004", "type": "Devil's Food" }
									]
							},
						"topping":
							[
								{ "id": "5001", "type": "None" },
								{ "id": "5002", "type": "Glazed" },
								{ "id": "5005", "type": "Sugar" },
								{ "id": "5007", "type": "Powdered Sugar" },
								{ "id": "5006", "type": "Chocolate with Sprinkles" },
								{ "id": "5003", "type": "Chocolate" },
								{ "id": "5004", "type": "Maple" }
							]
					}

				]
		}
};

//map.set('a', 5);
//obj['a'] = 5;

var i = 0, count = 1000, a;

Tests:

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

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 what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The test case measures the performance difference between using a `Map` data structure and an object (`obj`) for lookups.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Map lookup**: Using the `get()` method to retrieve values from a `Map` instance.
2. **Object lookup**: Using property access (`obj['a'] = 5;` is used to set the value, but in this test case, only lookups are performed).

**Pros and Cons**

* **Map lookup**:
	+ Pros: Efficient for large datasets, as it uses a hash table internally, providing O(1) average time complexity for lookups.
	+ Cons: May have additional overhead due to the creation of the `Map` instance and its internal data structures.
* **Object lookup**:
	+ Pros: Typically faster and more lightweight than using `Map`, as objects are stored in memory and don't require additional allocations.
	+ Cons: O(1) average time complexity is not guaranteed, especially when dealing with large datasets or complex object structures.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, the `Map` data structure is used. A `Map` is a collection of key-value pairs, where each key is unique and maps to a specific value.

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided code snippet. However, it's worth noting that some features like `const`, `let`, and arrow functions are not explicitly used in this benchmark, but they might be relevant when considering other aspects of JavaScript performance.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative data structures or lookup methods for JavaScript, consider the following:

* **Arrays**: While arrays provide O(1) access for indexed properties, they may have additional overhead due to indexing calculations.
* **Regular expressions**: Regular expressions can be used for pattern matching and string manipulation, but their performance is often slower than using native data structures like `Map`.
* **Closure-based lookups**: Using closures or higher-order functions to create custom lookup mechanisms might provide better performance or flexibility in specific scenarios.

In summary, this benchmark compares the performance of two common lookup methods: `Map` (efficient for large datasets) and object property access (`obj['a'] = 5;`).

Related benchmarks:

Map vs Object large (version: 0)

Lookup of map vs object

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):