Benchmark: indexOf vs map 002-5d

Script Preparation code:

var array = [];
for (var i=0; i<5; ++i) {
  	array.push('00' + i);
}

function hasWithIndexOf(needle) {
	return array.indexOf(needle) !== -1;
}

var map = new Map();
array.forEach(item => map.set(item, 111));

function hasWithMap(needle) {
	return needle in map;
}

Tests:

indexOf
for (var i=0; i<100; ++i) { array.indexOf("404") !== -1; // array.indexOf("000") !== -1; }
map
for (var i=0; i<100; ++i) { const x = map.has("404"); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
indexOf
map

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**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark definition consists of two test cases: `indexOf` and `map`. These test cases aim to measure the performance difference between using the traditional `indexOf()` method versus a `Map` data structure in JavaScript.

**Test Case 1: `indexOf`**

In this test case, an array is created with 5 elements, each representing a number from 0 to 4 ( padded with zeros). The `hasWithIndexOf` function uses the `indexOf()` method to search for a specific value (`404`) within the array. This function is executed 100 times.

**Pros and Cons of Traditional `indexOf()` Approach**

* **Pros:**
	+ Widely supported by most browsers and JavaScript engines.
	+ Easy to understand and implement.
	+ Well-established performance characteristics.
* **Cons:**
	+ Can be slower compared to other approaches, especially for larger datasets.
	+ May not perform well with large arrays or sparse data.

**Test Case 2: `map`**

In this test case, an array is created with the same elements as in the `indexOf` test case. A new `Map` object is created and populated with key-value pairs using the `forEach()` method. The `hasWithMap` function checks if a specific value (`404`) exists within the map.

**Pros and Cons of Using a `Map` Approach**

* **Pros:**
	+ Can be faster than traditional `indexOf()` for large datasets.
	+ Provides better performance for sparse data or large datasets with many keys.
	+ Supports modern JavaScript features like `has` method on maps.
* **Cons:**
	+ Requires the use of a `Map` object, which may not be supported by older browsers or JavaScript engines.
	+ May have higher memory usage compared to traditional arrays.

**Library and Purpose**

The `Map` data structure is a built-in JavaScript object that stores key-value pairs. In this benchmark, it's used as an alternative to traditional array-based indexing.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

In the `map` test case, the `has` method on maps is used, which was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). This method allows for fast and efficient lookups within a map.

**Other Alternatives**

There are other approaches to searching for values in an array, including:

* Using `Array.prototype.some()` or `Array.prototype.every()`
* Implementing a custom binary search algorithm
* Using a library like Lodash's `contains` function

However, these alternatives may not be as widely supported or optimized as the traditional `indexOf()` approach or the `Map` approach used in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided script preparation code creates an array with 5 elements and defines two functions: `hasWithIndexOf` and `hasWithMap`. The latter uses a `Map` object to store key-value pairs, while the former uses traditional indexing.

Related benchmarks:

indexOf vs map 002-5d (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: indexOf vs map

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

indexOf

map

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):