Benchmark: Map speed test 5

Script Preparation code:

function generateTestMap() {
  const result = new Map;
  for (let i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i) {
    result.set(i, {
      a: i,
      b: i / 2,
      r: 0,
    });
  }
  return result;
}

Tests:

forEach
const map = generateTestMap(); map.forEach((x, i) => { x.r = x.a + x.b + i; });
for .. of
const map = generateTestMap(); for(const [i, x] of map.entries()) { x.r = x.a + x.b + i; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
forEach
for .. of

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 and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a JavaScript function that generates a large Map (a data structure similar to an object) with 1 million entries, each containing three properties: `a`, `b`, and `r`. The function is defined as:

```javascript
function generateTestMap() {
  const result = new Map();
  for (let i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i) {
    result.set(i, {
      a: i,
      b: i / 2,
      r: 0,
    });
  }
  return result;
}
```

This function creates a large Map by setting each entry with an integer key `i` and an object value containing the corresponding values for `a`, `b`, and `r`.

**Benchmark Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches to iterate over the Map:

1. **forEach**: This method iterates over the entries of the Map using the `forEach` loop:
```javascript
map.forEach((x, i) => {
  x.r = x.a + x.b + i;
});
```

Pros: Easy to read and write, works well for small to medium-sized data sets.

Cons: In JavaScript, `forEach` is not optimized for large datasets like this one. It will iterate over the entire array in memory, which can be slow.

2. **for .. of**: This method iterates over the entries of the Map using a traditional `for` loop with an expression that returns each entry:
```javascript
for (const [i, x] of map.entries()) {
  x.r = x.a + x.b + i;
}
```

Pros: More memory-efficient than `forEach`, as it only accesses each entry once. It's also optimized for large datasets.

Cons: Can be less readable and more complex to write than `forEach`.

**Library and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, the following library is used:

*   None explicitly. However, the JavaScript built-in features are being utilized (Map data structure), which is quite standard in the programming language itself.

No special JavaScript features or syntaxes are required for these two approaches to work.

**Other Considerations**

When running benchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider factors such as:

*   **Cache performance**: Modern browsers and CPUs have various cache hierarchies that can affect execution speed. Optimizing code to minimize cache misses is crucial.
*   **Memory allocation**: Creating large datasets like the Map in this benchmark can cause memory allocation issues. Efficient data structures and algorithms can help mitigate these problems.
*   **Platform-specific optimizations**: Different platforms (e.g., desktop vs. mobile) and browsers may have unique performance characteristics that need to be accounted for when running benchmarks.

**Alternatives**

Some alternatives to consider for optimizing the `forEach` loop:

1.  Using an `Array.from()` conversion to iterate over the Map entries, which can provide better cache locality:
    ```javascript
const array = Array.from(map.entries());
array.forEach(([i, x]) => {
  x.r = x.a + x.b + i;
});
```
2.  Utilizing the `Map.prototype.forEach()` method with a callback function that only accesses the desired properties:
    ```javascript
map.forEach((x) => {
  x.r = x.a + x.b;
});
```

However, it's essential to remember that even with these optimizations, modern JavaScript engines and browsers are capable of providing good performance for many workloads.

Related benchmarks:

Map speed test 5 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: forEach vs for .. of

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

forEach

for .. of

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):