Benchmark: Map.get() vs Array.find() - With the same value to search

Script Preparation code:

dataArr = [...Array(10000)].map((_, id) => ({ id, data: Math.random() }));
dataMap = new Map(dataArr.map(v => [v.id, v]));
valueToSearch = Math.floor(Math.random() * 10000);

Tests:

Array.find()
dataArr.find((item) => item.id === valueToSearch)
Map.get()
dataMap.get(valueToSearch)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.find()
Map.get()

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for finding an element in a collection: `Map.get()` vs `Array.find()`. Specifically, it searches for an element with a unique identifier (`valueToSearch`) within large arrays (`dataArr`) and maps (`dataMap`).

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Map.get()**: This method is used to retrieve the value associated with a given key in a `Map` object.
2. **Array.find()**: This method returns the first element in an array that satisfies a provided condition.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Map.get()**:
	+ Pros: Efficient, especially for large datasets, since maps have an average case lookup time of O(1) due to their hash table implementation.
	+ Cons: Requires the key (unique identifier) to be present in the map, which might not always be the case. Additionally, map lookups are generally slower than array searches because they involve hashing and storing the data.
* **Array.find()**:
	+ Pros: More flexible, as it can find any element that satisfies a condition, not just a specific key. It also has a relatively low overhead compared to map operations.
	+ Cons: Slower for large datasets due to the linear search algorithm (O(n)), where n is the size of the array.

**Library Used**

The `Map` object in JavaScript is part of the ECMAScript standard and is implemented differently by various browsers. However, since both Chrome 114 (the only browser reported) supports it, we can assume that the benchmark assumes a modern web browser with a relatively recent implementation of `Map`.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark does not utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's standard in ECMAScript.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for finding an element in an array or map include:

* **Using `Array.prototype.indexOf()`**: Similar to `Array.find()`, but returns the index of the first occurrence, rather than the element itself.
* **Using `Array.prototype.slice()` and `indexOf()`**: Returns all elements that satisfy a condition, by creating a new array with `slice()` and then filtering it using `indexOf()`.
* **Using a custom implementation**: Depending on the specific requirements and constraints of your project, you might want to implement a custom search function.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided preparation code creates two large arrays (`dataArr`) and maps (`dataMap`) filled with random data. It then randomly selects a unique identifier (`valueToSearch`) and uses it to find an element in both the array and map.

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case consists of a benchmark definition, a test name, and no additional setup code (as specified by the `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code` fields).

Related benchmarks:

Map.get() vs Array.find() - With the same value to search (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.find() vs Map.get()

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.find()

Map.get()

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):