Benchmark: {} vs Map with set ONLY

HTML Preparation code:

<!--your preparation HTML code goes here-->

Tests:

Creation: Object
const d = {}; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { d[i] = i; }
Creation: Map
const d = new Map(); for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { d.set(i, i); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Creation: Object
Creation: Map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:136.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/136.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 136 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Creation: Object	51097.0 Ops/sec
Creation: Map	3517.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark provided tests the performance of two different data structures in JavaScript: a plain object (`{}`) and a `Map`. Specifically, the benchmark is designed to compare the time it takes to create and populate each data structure with 10,000 key-value pairs.

### Options Compared
1. **Creation: Object**
    - **Benchmark Definition**: 
      ```javascript
      const d = {};
      for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
          d[i] = i;
      }
      ```
    - Here, a standard JavaScript object is created, and key-value pairs are added where both the keys and values are integers from 0 to 9999.

2. **Creation: Map**
    - **Benchmark Definition**: 
      ```javascript
      const d = new Map();
      for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
          d.set(i, i);
      }
      ```
    - In this case, a `Map` instance is created and populated using the `.set()` method, which maps the integer keys to their corresponding values.

### Pros and Cons
#### Object
- **Pros**:
  - Simplicity: Objects have a straightforward syntax and are familiar to most JavaScript developers.
  - Performance for simple use cases: Typically, for small sets of key-value pairs, objects may perform better due to lower overhead.

- **Cons**:
  - Inherits properties: Objects have a prototype chain, which means they might include properties that are not directly defined on the object itself, potentially leading to unexpected behavior when checking existence.
  - Less efficient when keys are not strings or symbols, as object keys are automatically converted to strings.
  
#### Map
- **Pros**:
  - Key flexibility: `Map` can use any value (including objects) as keys, unlike objects which only allow strings and symbols.
  - Maintains order: The insertion order of keys is preserved in a `Map`, which can be beneficial in certain scenarios.
  - Optimization for larger datasets: `Map` provides better performance for frequent additions and deletions compared to objects.

- **Cons**:
  - Overhead: There can be more memory usage and slightly more overhead compared to a plain object, as `Map` maintains additional metadata to manage its entries.

### Other Considerations
- **Performance Differences**: The benchmark results show that creating an object (`ExecutionsPerSecond: 15964.15`) is significantly faster than creating a `Map` (`ExecutionsPerSecond: 2661.23`). This emphasizes that for scenarios focused purely on creation and static property access, an object may be preferred for performance critical applications.

- **Use Cases**:
  - Use objects for simple key-value collections or when you have string keys and do not require the benefits of a `Map`.
  - Consider using `Map` when dealing with dynamic key sets, when you need to preserve insertion order, or when keys might include complex types (like objects).

### Alternatives
Apart from using plain objects and `Map`, other alternatives for storing data include:
- **WeakMap**: This is similar to `Map`, but has a garbage collection feature that allows for keys that are objects to be removed if there are no strong references to them. This is useful for memory management.
- **Set**: While not directly comparable as it doesn't hold key-value pairs, it can be used for storing unique values and could serve as a complementary structure.
- **Typed arrays**: For numeric data, typed arrays can provide performance advantages in terms of memory overhead and speed of operations.

In summary, the provided benchmark effectively highlights the performance differences between two fundamental JavaScript structures, offering insights into when to appropriately use each one based on their strengths and limitations.

Related benchmarks:

{} vs Map with set ONLY (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: Creation: Object vs Creation: Map

Created: one month ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Creation: Object

Creation: Map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one month ago):