Benchmark: indexOf vs map 002-5e

Script Preparation code:

var array = [];
for (var i=0; i<7; ++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("003") !== -1; // middle }
map
for (var i=0; i<100; ++i) { const x = map.has("003"); }

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.

I'll break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a JavaScript function that creates an array of strings, pushes them to the array, and then checks if a specific string exists in the array using two different methods:

1. `indexOf`: A built-in JavaScript method that searches for the first occurrence of a specified value (needle) in an array.
2. `map` (using a Map data structure): Creates a new Map object, adds key-value pairs to it, and then checks if the needle exists as a key in the map.

The script preparation code sets up the test environment by creating an array of strings and initializing two functions: `hasWithIndexOf` and `hasWithMap`.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. `indexOf`: Uses the built-in JavaScript method to search for the needle in the array.
2. `map`: Uses a Map data structure to store key-value pairs and checks if the needle exists as a key.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**`indexOf`:**

Pros:

* Fastest execution time, as it's a built-in method optimized for performance.
* Simple to implement and understand.

Cons:

* May not be as efficient for large datasets due to the need to scan the entire array.
* Can return incorrect results if the needle is not present in the array.

**`map`:**

Pros:

* Efficient for large datasets, as it uses a hash table data structure for fast lookups.
* Can handle cases where the needle is not present in the array.

Cons:

* Requires additional memory to store the Map object.
* More complex to implement and understand due to the use of a custom data structure.

**Library/Utility Used**

In this benchmark, the `Map` data structure is used from the ECMAScript standard. It's a built-in JavaScript utility that provides an efficient way to store key-value pairs.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided code snippet.

**Other Alternatives**

Alternative approaches for searching elements in an array include:

1. Using `Array.prototype.findIndex()` or `Array.prototype.find()`: These methods search for the first occurrence of a specified value and return its index or value, respectively.
2. Implementing a custom binary search algorithm: This approach can be more efficient than `indexOf` but requires additional memory and computation.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements of your use case, such as performance, memory constraints, and simplicity.

In summary, this benchmark compares two approaches for searching elements in an array: `indexOf` (built-in method) vs. `map` (using a Map data structure). The results indicate that `map` is faster for large datasets, but it requires additional memory and is more complex to implement.

Related benchmarks:

indexOf vs map 002-5e (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):