Benchmark: array to map and find small vs array find small

Script Preparation code:

var arr = Array.from({length: 100}).map((_,i) => ({id: i}));
var findTargets = Array.from({length: 100}).map((_,i) => idGen());
function idGen() {
  return Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000) % 1000
}

Tests:

array to map and find small
const arrMap = new Map(arr.entries()) findTargets.forEach(target => arrMap.get(target));
array find small
findTargets.forEach(target => arr.find(i => i.id === target));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array to map and find small
array find small

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.

Measuring performance differences in JavaScript is crucial for optimizing code, and MeasureThat.net provides a valuable platform for doing so. Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark definition is the JavaScript code that defines the test case. There are two test cases:

1. `array to map and find small`: This test creates an array of 100 objects with unique IDs, generates another array of 100 random IDs, and then iterates over the second array, finding each ID in the first array using a Map.
2. `array find small`: This test is similar to the previous one, but instead of using a Map, it directly searches for each ID in the original array.

**Options Compared:**

In this benchmark, two approaches are compared:

1. **Using a Map (`array to map and find small`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Fast lookup times due to the data structure's internal implementation.
		+ Can handle large datasets efficiently.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires more memory to store the Map instance.
		+ May have overhead due to creating and managing the Map object.
2. **Direct Array Search (`array find small`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Lightweight, with minimal memory usage.
		+ Fast iterations through the array using simple indexing.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower for large datasets due to linear search.
		+ May have higher overhead due to repeated array traversals.

**Library:**

There is no explicit library used in these benchmark definitions. However, JavaScript's built-in `Map` object and array methods (e.g., `find()`) are leveraged for performance comparison.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

Neither of the provided test cases uses any special JavaScript features or syntax that would affect their execution.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you were to modify or extend these benchmark definitions, consider exploring other approaches:

* **Using a data structure like a Set**: Similar to using a Map, but with faster lookup times and lower memory usage.
* **Caching intermediate results**: If the dataset is large, caching the result of the first iteration can avoid repeated computations.
* **Using a more efficient search algorithm**: For very large datasets, algorithms like binary search or hash-based searching might be more suitable.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project. MeasureThat.net's benchmarking framework is designed to help you find the most optimal solution for your use case.

Related benchmarks:

array to map and find small vs array find small (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: array to map and find small vs array find small

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array to map and find small

array find small

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):