Benchmark: indexOf vs map 002-6a

Script Preparation code:

var array = [];
for (var i=0; i<30; ++i) {
  	array.push('00' + i);
}

var map = new Map();
array.forEach(item => map.set(item, true));

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.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two test cases: `indexOf` and `map`. These tests measure the performance of two different approaches to search for a specific value in an array:

1. **`indexOf`**: This test case uses the traditional `Array.indexOf()` method to find if a certain string (`"404"`) exists in the array.
2. **`map`**: This test case uses the `Map` data structure, specifically the `has()` method, to check if a key (`"404"`) exists in the map.

**Options compared**

The two tests compare the performance of these two approaches:

* Traditional JavaScript arrays (using `Array.indexOf()`)
* Modern Map data structure (using `Map.has()`)

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **`indexOf`**:
	* Pros: Wide browser support, easy to implement.
	* Cons: Can be slower for large arrays, may involve unnecessary iterations.
2. **`map`**:
	* Pros: Efficient for most cases, especially when using modern JavaScript engines that can optimize `Map.has()` operations.
	* Cons: May require additional setup and imports (e.g., importing the `Map` class in older browsers).

**Library/Feature usage**

There is no library being used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the `Map` data structure was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), so modern JavaScript engines should support it.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

The benchmark uses ES6 syntax for the `Map` data structure (`const map = new Map();`). This is a relatively modern feature, and older browsers may not support it natively. To ensure compatibility, users can transpile their code to older syntax using tools like Babel or TranspileJS.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* Using `Set` data structure instead of `Map`: This could be an interesting comparison, as sets and maps have different use cases.
* Implementing custom search algorithms: For example, using binary search for arrays or tries for strings.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide the same level of performance or compatibility as the original approaches being tested.

Related benchmarks:

indexOf vs map 002-6a (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: indexOf vs map

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

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):