Benchmark: Map.has vs Map.get

HTML Preparation code:


<div id=''></div>

Script Preparation code:

const map = new Map();
map.set("foo", 1);
const map1 = new Map();
map1.set("foo", 1);
let count = 10000;

Tests:

has
const map = new Map(); map.set("foo", 1); for(let i = 0; i < 10000; i ++){ if(map.has("foo")){ map.set("foo", map.get("foo") + 1); } }
get
const map1 = new Map(); map1.set("foo", 1); for(let i = 0; i < 10000; i ++){ const num = map1.get("foo"); if(num){ map1.set("foo", num + 1); } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
has
get

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 132 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
has	12143.0 Ops/sec
get	16272.9 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches for updating a value in a Map object:

1. **Map.has() + Map.get()**: This approach uses the `has()` method to check if a key exists in the map, and then uses the `get()` method to retrieve the associated value.
2. **Map1.set()**: This approach simply updates the value of an existing key using the `set()` method.

**Options Compared:**

The two options are being compared:

* Option 1: Using `has()` followed by `get()` to update a value in a Map object.
* Option 2: Directly updating the value using `set()`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

**Option 1 (Map.has() + Map.get()):**

Pros:

* More concise code
* Potential for better caching or memoization opportunities, since `get()` is only called when the key is not present in the map

Cons:

* Additional overhead due to the two separate method calls
* Potential performance impact if the map is large and the `has()` check is frequent

**Option 2 (Map1.set()):**

Pros:

* Direct and simple update operation
* Less overhead compared to Option 1, as only a single method call is made

Cons:

* Code might be less readable or maintainable due to the lack of explicit key checking
* Potential performance impact if the map is large and updates are frequent

**Other Considerations:**

The benchmark results show that Firefox 123 performs slightly better on the `get()` approach compared to the `has()` + `get()` approach. However, this result might be influenced by various factors such as the specific use case, map size, and system configuration.

It's worth noting that these two approaches are quite different in terms of their intent and performance characteristics. The `has()` + `get()` approach is more general-purpose and may be suitable for scenarios where key existence and value retrieval are critical, while the `set()` approach is more concise but might not provide the same level of flexibility.

**Libraries and Special JS Features:**

There is no library explicitly used in this benchmark. However, it's worth mentioning that JavaScript engines like V8 (used by Chrome) and SpiderMonkey (used by Firefox) have their own internal optimizations and caching mechanisms for Map operations.

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or optimizing your code further, some potential areas to consider include:

* Using a more efficient data structure, such as an array or a custom binary search tree
* Leveraging specialized libraries or frameworks for optimized Map operations
* Exploring other optimization techniques, such as parallel processing or memoization

Related benchmarks:

Map.has vs Map.get (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: has vs get

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

has

get

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):