Benchmark: Map get VS Map has get2

Script Preparation code:

var i = 0, count = 20000, a;
var map = new Map();

for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
   map.set(i + '_' + '_g' , i);
}

Tests:

Map get
for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { a = map.get(i + '_' + '_g'); }
Map has get
for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { let key = i + '_' + '_g'; if (map.has(key)) { a = map.get(key); } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Map get
Map has get

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:140.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/140.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 140 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Map has get

300/s

Map get

300/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Map has get	300 Ops/sec
Map get	300 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test that compares two approaches: `Map.get()` and `Map.has() + Map.get()`. The test is designed to measure the performance difference between these two methods in retrieving values from a large Map object.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates a new Map object, `map`, and populates it with 20,000 key-value pairs using the `set()` method. The keys are generated dynamically using string concatenation (`i + '_' + '_g'`).

```javascript
var i = 0, count = 20000, a;
var map = new Map();
for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
  map.set(i + '_' + '_g', i);
}
```

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code is null, indicating that no specific HTML structure or content is required for this benchmark.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Map get**: This test case uses the `map.get()` method to retrieve values from the Map object.
```javascript
for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
  a = map.get(i + '_' + '_g');
}
```
2. **Map has get**: This test case uses the `map.has()` method to check if a key exists in the Map, and then retrieves the value using `map.get()`.
```javascript
for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
  let key = i + '_' + '_g';
  if (map.has(key)) {
    a = map.get(key);
  }
}
```
**Library: None**

The benchmark does not use any external libraries, which is good for isolating the test results and ensuring that the comparison between `Map.get()` and `Map.has() + Map.get()` is accurate.

**Special JS Features or Syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code uses standard JavaScript syntax and features to create the Map object, populate it with data, and measure performance.

**Performance Comparison**

The benchmark measures the execution rate of each test case using the `ExecutionsPerSecond` metric. This value represents the number of times each test case is executed per second on a given device.

In this benchmark, **Mobile Safari 16** on an iPhone running iOS 16.4.1 achieved:

* **Map get**: 297.35552978515625 executions per second
* **Map has get**: 231.34327697753906 executions per second

These results indicate that `Map.get()` is slightly faster than `Map.has() + Map.get()`.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for benchmarking JavaScript performance include:

1. **Benchmarking libraries**: Libraries like Benchmark.js, jsperf, or micro-benchmark provide more advanced features and control over the benchmarking process.
2. **Testing frameworks**: Frameworks like Jest, Mocha, or Cypress can be used to write and run tests, including performance benchmarks.
3. **Browser-specific APIs**: Some browsers, like Chrome, have APIs like `performance.now()` or `PerformanceObserver` that provide more accurate timing measurements.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative depends on the specific use case, desired level of control, and performance requirements.

Map get VS Map has get2 (version: 0)

Map get VS Map has get2

Comparing performance of: `Map get vs Map has get`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Map get

Map has get

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Map get VS Map has get2 (version: 0)

Map get VS Map has get2

Comparing performance of: Map get vs Map has get

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Map get

Map has get

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Map get vs Map has get`