Benchmark: Array.find vs Map.get

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

Test the performance of Array.find vs. Map.get, with various array sizes, and with/without conversion from array to map

Comparing performance of: `Array.find, 100 elements vs Map.get, 100 elements vs Array.find, 1000 elements vs Map.get, 1000 elements vs Array.find, 10 000 elements vs Map.get, 10 000 elements`

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Script Preparation code:

function getRandomElement(id) {
  return {
    id,
    a: Math.random(),
    b: Math.random(),
    c: Math.random(),
  }
}

function getArray(length) {
  const result = [];
  for (let i = 0; i < length; i++) {
    result.push(getRandomElement(i))
  }
  
  return result;
}

function arrayToMap(array) {
  return new Map(array.map(el => [el.id, el]));
}

function getRandomInt(max) {
  return Math.floor(Math.random() * max);
}

array_small = getArray(100);
array_medium = getArray(1000);
array_large = getArray(10000);

map_small = arrayToMap(array_small);
map_medium = arrayToMap(array_medium);
map_large = arrayToMap(array_large);

Tests:

Array.find, 100 elements
const target = getRandomInt(9999); array_small.find(el => el.id === target);
Map.get, 100 elements
const target = getRandomInt(9999); map_small.get(target);
Array.find, 1000 elements
const target = getRandomInt(999999); array_medium.find(el => el.id === target);
Map.get, 1000 elements
const target = getRandomInt(999999); map_medium.get(target)
Array.find, 10 000 elements
const target = getRandomInt(999999); array_large.find(el => el.id === target);
Map.get, 10 000 elements
const target = getRandomInt(999999); map_large.get(target)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.find, 100 elements
Map.get, 100 elements
Array.find, 1000 elements
Map.get, 1000 elements
Array.find, 10 000 elements
Map.get, 10 000 elements

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; rv:131.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/131.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Map.get, 10 000 elements

476.3M/s

Map.get, 1000 elements

468.0M/s

Map.get, 100 elements

420.3M/s

Array.find, 100 elements

1.8M/s

Array.find, 1000 elements

54K/s

Array.find, 10 000 elements

5K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Map.get, 10 000 elements	476,300,544 Ops/sec
Map.get, 1000 elements	467,951,840 Ops/sec
Map.get, 100 elements	420,348,960 Ops/sec
Array.find, 100 elements	1,779,824 Ops/sec
Array.find, 1000 elements	54,293 Ops/sec
Array.find, 10 000 elements	5,449 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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of `Array.prototype.find()` and `Map.prototype.get()` methods in JavaScript. The test case varies the size of the arrays and maps, from 100 to 10,000 elements.

**Options Being Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Array.prototype.find()**: This method searches for an element in the array that satisfies the provided condition (in this case, `el.id === target`). If no such element is found, it returns `undefined`.
2. **Map.prototype.get()**: This method retrieves the value associated with a given key from the map. In this test case, the key is generated using `getRandomInt(9999)`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Array.find():**

Pros:

* Generally faster than `Map.get()` for smaller datasets (e.g., 100-1000 elements)
* More concise and expressive code

Cons:

* May be slower for larger datasets due to the linear search algorithm
* Requires the array to have a specific structure (i.e., an array of objects with an `id` property)

**Map.get():**

Pros:

* Faster than `Array.find()` for larger datasets (e.g., 1000-10,000 elements)
* More efficient when working with large amounts of data that can be stored in a map

Cons:

* Requires a map to be created and populated with key-value pairs
* Less concise and expressive code compared to `Array.find()`

**Other Considerations**

* The test case uses a random value generation function (`getRandomElement()` and `getRandomInt()`) to simulate real-world scenarios.
* The benchmark measures the execution time of each method in milliseconds per second (ExecutionsPerSecond).

**Library/Functionality Used**

The benchmark uses two custom functions:

1. `arrayToMap(array)`: Converts an array of objects to a map, where each object's `id` property is used as the key.
2. `getRandomElement(id)`: Generates a random object with `id`, `a`, `b`, and `c` properties.

These functions are not part of the standard JavaScript library.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark definition.

**Alternatives**

Other methods or approaches that could be used for similar benchmarks might include:

* Using other search algorithms, such as binary search or hash-based search
* Comparing performance with different data structures, like linked lists or trees
* Testing the performance of alternative libraries or frameworks (e.g., React, Vue.js)