Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
testm1
(version: 2)
Comparing performance of:
m1 vs m2 vs m3
Created:
8 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var mp = new Map(), mparr; for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { mp.set(`${i}${i}`, i); } mparr = [...mp];
Tests:
m1
var cnt = 0; for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { if (mp.has(`${i+10}${i+10}`)) { cnt++ } }
m2
var cnt = 0, mpp = new Map(mparr), mpparr; for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { if (mpp.has(`${i+10}${i+10}`)) { cnt++ } } mpparr = [...mpp];
m3
var cnt = 0; for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { if (mparr.find(x => x[0] === `${i+10}${i+10}`)) { cnt++ } }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
m1
m2
m3
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):
Let's break down the benchmark and its various components. **Benchmark Definition JSON** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark defined by MeasureThat.net. Here's what each section tests: * `Script Preparation Code`: This is the code that prepares the script for execution, including variables, data structures, and setup necessary for the benchmark. * `Html Preparation Code` (not present in this example): This would be HTML code used to set up the testing environment, but it's empty in this case. * `Benchmark Definition`: This contains the actual JavaScript code that runs the test. In this case, there are three different versions of the same test: 1. `m1`: Tests a simple iteration using `has()` on a Map (`mp`). 2. `m2`: Tests iteration using `has()` on another Map created from an array (`mparr`) and a new Map (`mpp`). 3. `m3`: Tests iteration using `find()` on an array. **Comparison of Options** The three test cases compare different approaches to iterating over the data: * **m1**: Uses `has()` on the original Map (`mp`). This is likely the most straightforward and efficient approach, as it avoids creating unnecessary intermediate objects. + Pros: Simple, easy to understand, and potentially efficient. + Cons: May not be optimized for performance in all cases (e.g., when using a very large dataset). * **m2**: Creates an array `mpparr` from the original Map (`mparr`) and then iterates over it using `has()` on another Map (`mpp`). This adds unnecessary overhead due to the extra step of creating the array. + Pros: May provide better performance in cases where iteration is expensive (e.g., when dealing with very large datasets). + Cons: More complex, harder to understand, and likely slower due to the added overhead. * **m3**: Uses `find()` on an array. This approach is often faster than iterating over an object using `has()`, but may be slower for arrays that are already sparse (i.e., most elements have a value). + Pros: May provide better performance, especially when dealing with sparse arrays. + Cons: More complex, and may not be as efficient as using `has()` on objects. **Other Considerations** * **Library Usage**: The benchmark uses the built-in `Map` object, which is a part of the JavaScript standard library. This ensures that the results are portable across different browsers and environments. * **JS Features**: There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark (e.g., async/await, promises, destructuring). **Alternatives** If you wanted to create your own microbenchmarking framework using MeasureThat.net's approach, here are some alternatives: 1. Create a custom `BenchmarkDefinition` format with the same structure as the provided JSON. 2. Implement a testing engine that can execute the benchmark code and report results in a similar format. 3. Use a library like BenchmarkJS or Microbenchmark to create and run your own benchmarks. Keep in mind that creating a robust and efficient microbenchmarking framework requires careful consideration of various factors, including performance optimization techniques, error handling, and user experience.
Related benchmarks:
for vs map
Iterate Map vs Array
loop vs map 1994
while, for, for-of, map
Map. foreach
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?