Benchmark: map vs obj test - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var map = new Map();
var obj = {};

var value = {
    toto: 'name',
    toto: {
        toto: 'name',
        toto: {
            toto: 'name',
        },
    },
    toto: {
        toto: 'name',
        toto: {
            toto: 'name',
        },
    },
    toto: {
        toto: 'name',
        toto: {
            toto: 'name',
        },
    },
}

Tests:

map
for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { map.set(i, value); }
obj
for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { obj[i] = value; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
map
obj

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.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case, specifically designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using a `Map` data structure and an object (`obj`) with nested properties.

**What is tested?**

Two individual test cases are compared:

1. **"map"`**: This test case uses a `Map` data structure to store 10,000 key-value pairs.
2. **"obj"`**: This test case uses an object (`obj`) with nested properties to store the same 10,000 key-value pairs.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Using a `Map` data structure
* Using an object (`obj`) with nested properties

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **"map"`:
	+ Pros:
		- More efficient for large datasets, as it uses a hash table to store key-value pairs.
		- Faster lookups and insertions.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower for small datasets or when the number of keys is not known at compile time.
* **"obj"`:
	+ Pros:
		- Faster for small datasets or when the number of keys is not known at compile time, as it avoids the overhead of a hash table.
	+ Cons:
		- Less efficient for large datasets, as it uses a nested object structure that can lead to slower lookups and insertions.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's likely that the `Map` data structure is implemented using a built-in JavaScript function or a third-party library.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code is written in standard JavaScript syntax.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark, you might consider adding additional options, such as:

* Using an array with `push()` instead of a `Map` or object
* Using a custom data structure, such as a trie or a binary search tree
* Adding additional complexity, such as nested objects or arrays within the test case

Keep in mind that these alternatives might introduce additional complexity and may not provide a straightforward comparison to the existing options.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The script preparation code includes two variables: `map` and `obj`, which are initialized with an empty Map and object, respectively. The `value` variable is defined as a nested object with repeating properties, which will be used to populate the map and object.

Related benchmarks:

map vs obj test (version: 0)

test

Comparing performance of: map vs obj

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

map

obj

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):