Benchmark: ~ Hashmap vs Array.Filter

Script Preparation code:

const counter = 10
const map = new Map()
const array = new Array(counter)

window.counter = counter
window.map = map
window.array = array
for (let i = 0; i < counter; i++) {
    map.set(i)
    array[counter] = i
}

Tests:

Hashmap
for (let i = 0; i < 20000; i++) { window.map.has(5) }
Array.filter
for (let i = 0; i < 20000; i++) { window.array.filter((value) => value === 5) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Hashmap
Array.filter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/133.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 133 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Hashmap	18485.6 Ops/sec
Array.filter	3329.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark being tested and the options being compared.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two JavaScript data structures: `Map` (a hashmap) and `Array.filter`. The test case uses a small dataset of 10,000 elements, and each test case measures the time it takes to execute a single iteration over the data structure using the `has()` method for `Map` or the `(value) => value === 5` callback function for `Array.filter`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing two options:

1. **Hashmap (Map)**: A hashmap is a data structure that stores key-value pairs in a way that allows for efficient lookup, insertion, and deletion of elements.
2. **Array.filter**: An array method that creates a new array with all elements that pass the test implemented by the provided function.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Hashmap (Map)**:
	+ Pros: Fast lookup times, efficient insertion and deletion, no need to iterate over the entire dataset.
	+ Cons: May require more memory due to the overhead of storing key-value pairs.
* **Array.filter**:
	+ Pros: Simple to implement, easy to understand, and does not require explicit memory management.
	+ Cons: Iterates over the entire dataset for each iteration, which can be slow for large datasets.

**Library**

In this benchmark, no library is explicitly mentioned. However, it's worth noting that `Map` is a built-in JavaScript data structure, while `Array.filter` is also a built-in method.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard ECMAScript 2022 specification.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark using alternative approaches, some options could include:

* Using a different data structure, such as an object with named properties instead of a hashmap.
* Implementing a custom lookup function for the array filter case.
* Adding more elements to the dataset to test performance at larger scales.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach will depend on the specific requirements and constraints of your use case.

Related benchmarks:

~ Hashmap vs Array.Filter (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Hashmap vs Array.filter

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Hashmap

Array.filter

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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