Benchmark: Map.get vs Array.findIndex

Script Preparation code:

var m = new Map();
var a = [];

for (var i = 1; i <= 100000; i++) {
  m.set('url_' + i, 'data');
  a.push({url: 'url_' + i, data: 'data'});
}

Tests:

Map.get
m.get('url_50000');
Array.findIndex
a.findIndex(val => val.url === 'url_50000');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Map.get
Array.findIndex

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year 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
Map.get	217705952.0 Ops/sec
Array.findIndex	5396.2 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two different approaches: `Map.get` (specifically, using the `m.get('url_50000')` method) and `Array.findIndex`. The goal is to determine which approach is faster.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Map.get**: This method retrieves a value from a Map object based on its key.
2. **Array.findIndex**: This method finds the index of the first element in an array that satisfies the provided condition.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Map.get**

Pros:

* Can be faster for large datasets, as it uses a hash table to store data, allowing for fast lookups.
* Can be more convenient than manual indexing, especially when dealing with complex lookup conditions.

Cons:

* May require additional memory to store the Map object and its contents.
* Can be slower if the Map is not properly indexed or if there are many collisions (i.e., multiple keys mapping to the same value).

**Array.findIndex**

Pros:

* Is a standard array method, making it easily accessible in most JavaScript environments.
* Does not require additional memory to store data.

Cons:

* May be slower for large datasets due to its reliance on indexing and scanning through the array elements.
* Can be less convenient than Map.get when dealing with complex lookup conditions.

**Library and Purpose**

In this benchmark, no specific library is used. However, it's worth noting that `Map` is a built-in JavaScript object that provides efficient key-value pairing.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None of the provided benchmark code uses any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, promises, or ES6+ syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to compare the performance of other approaches, here are some alternatives:

* **Using a set**: Instead of `Map.get`, you could use a `Set` to look up values. This approach would be similar to `Array.findIndex`, but might be faster for smaller datasets.
* **Manual indexing**: You could manually index through an array or object to find a specific value, using techniques like binary search or linear search.
* **Using a custom data structure**: Depending on the nature of your data and performance requirements, you might consider using a custom data structure like a trie (prefix tree) or a balanced binary search tree.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely require more effort to implement correctly, but can provide different trade-offs in terms of performance and complexity.

Related benchmarks:

Map.get vs Array.findIndex (version: 0)

which is faster

Comparing performance of: Map.get vs Array.findIndex

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Map.get

Array.findIndex

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):