Benchmark: Object vs Map base op

Tests:

Object
const numElements = 100; // Generate random keys and values for benchmarking const generateData = (count) => { const data = []; for (let i = 0; i < count; i++) { data.push([`key${i}`, `value${i}`]); } return data; }; const testData = generateData(numElements); // Object Benchmark Functions const benchmarkObject = () => { const obj = {}; testData.forEach(([key, value]) => { obj[key] = value; }); testData.forEach(([key, _]) => { obj[key]; }); testData.forEach(([key, _]) => { const value = obj[key]; }); testData.forEach(([key, _]) => { obj.hasOwnProperty(key); !obj[key]; }); }; benchmarkObject();
Map
const numElements = 100; // Generate random keys and values for benchmarking const generateData = (count) => { const data = []; for (let i = 0; i < count; i++) { data.push([`key${i}`, `value${i}`]); } return data; }; const testData = generateData(numElements); const benchmarkMap = () => { const map = new Map(); testData.forEach(([key, value]) => { map.set(key, value); }); testData.forEach(([key, _]) => { map.get(key); }); testData.forEach(([key, _]) => { const value = map.get(key); }); testData.forEach(([key, _]) => { map.has(key); }); }; benchmarkMap()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object
Map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/126.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Object	132310.9 Ops/sec
Map	235977.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases for benchmarking JavaScript objects and Maps. Here's an explanation of what each approach tests, their pros and cons, and other considerations:

**Object-based approach**

In this approach, we use a plain JavaScript object (`const obj = {}`) to store data.

```javascript
testData.forEach(([key, value]) => {
  obj[key] = value;
});
```

This code iterates over the test data array and assigns each key-value pair to the `obj` object. The subsequent lines of code demonstrate various operations on this object:

```javascript
testData.forEach(([key, _]) => {
  obj[key];
});

testData.forEach(([key, _]) => {
  const value = obj[key];
});
```

These lines execute the property access operator (`.`) with a key that doesn't exist in the object (using `_` as a placeholder for an unused variable). This is likely to check the behavior of JavaScript when accessing non-existent properties on objects.

```javascript
testData.forEach(([key, _]) => {
  obj.hasOwnProperty(key);
  !obj[key];
});
```

These lines test whether the `hasOwnProperty()` method returns true or false when checking if a property exists in the object, and also check if the property has a value (`!obj[key]`).

**Map-based approach**

In this approach, we use JavaScript's built-in `Map` data structure to store key-value pairs.

```javascript
const map = new Map();

testData.forEach(([key, value]) => {
  map.set(key, value);
});

testData.forEach(([key, _]) => {
  map.get(key);
});

testData.forEach(([key, _]) => {
  const value = map.get(key);
});

testData.forEach(([key, _]) => {
  map.has(key);
});
```

Similar to the object-based approach, these lines demonstrate various operations on the `Map` instance.

**Libraries and syntax**

Neither of the two approaches uses a specific JavaScript library. However, it's worth noting that some libraries might provide optimized implementations for certain data structures or algorithms that could be used in benchmarking scenarios.

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in either approach. If you're interested in exploring other aspects of JavaScript performance optimization, consider looking into topics like:

* `for...of` loops vs traditional `for` loops
* Array methods (e.g., `forEach`, `map`, `reduce`) vs traditional looping constructs
* Memory allocation and deallocation patterns

**Other alternatives**

If you'd like to explore alternative approaches or data structures for benchmarking, consider the following:

1. **Arrays**: Use native JavaScript arrays (`const arr = [...];`) for testing array-based operations.
2. **Set**: Use JavaScript's built-in `Set` data structure (`const set = new Set();`) for testing set-based operations.
3. **WeakMap**: Use a WeakMap (`const map = new WeakMap();`) to test memory deallocation patterns when using Maps with garbage collection.
4. **Custom data structures**: Consider creating custom data structures (e.g., linked lists, trees) for testing specific algorithms or performance characteristics.

These alternatives can provide valuable insights into the performance characteristics of different JavaScript data structures and algorithms.

Related benchmarks:

Object vs Map base op (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object vs Map

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object

Map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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