Benchmark: Map.has vs Set.has 01.04.2025

Script Preparation code:

const set = new Set(["one", "two"]);
const map = new Map([["one", true], ["two", true]]);

Tests:

Set.has
set.has('one'); set.has('two'); set.has('three');
Map.has
map.has('one'); map.has('two'); map.has('three');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Set.has
Map.has

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/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Set.has	161844352.0 Ops/sec
Map.has	169454928.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided benchmark tests the performance of two JavaScript data structures: `Set` and `Map`. Both `.has` methods of these structures are compared to determine which is more efficient in checking for the existence of elements.

### Overview of Tested Options

1. **Set.has**: 
   - The `Set` data structure is designed to store unique values of any type. 
   - The `.has(value)` method returns `true` if the value exists in the `Set`, and `false` otherwise.

2. **Map.has**: 
   - The `Map` data structure holds key-value pairs. 
   - The `.has(key)` method returns `true` if an element with the specified key exists in the `Map`, and `false` otherwise.

### Pros and Cons of Each Approach

#### Pros of Set.has:
- **Performance**: Generally optimized for existence checks due to its unique value focus, potentially offering faster lookups for large sets of unique items.
- **Memory Efficiency**: Uses less memory overhead compared to `Map` when only unique keys are needed, as it only tracks the value.

#### Cons of Set.has:
- **Limited Functionality**: Only stores values without associated metadata or data structures.

#### Pros of Map.has:
- **Key-Value Storage**: Allows for more complex data storage, associating each key with a specific value, making it suitable for scenarios requiring both keys and values.
- **Direct Lookup by Key**: Usually offers a very efficient lookup mechanism for large datasets involving keys linked to values.

#### Cons of Map.has:
- **Memory Overhead**: Slightly more memory-intensive due to the storage of key-value pairs compared to the simple collection of unique values in `Set`.

### Other Considerations
- The choice between `Set` and `Map` depends heavily on the specific use case. For pure existence checks, where you only need to know whether an item is present, `Set` may be more appropriate. However, if you need to associate the existence of a value with some additional information (i.e., a key-value relationship), `Map` would be the better choice.
- Both methods are part of the ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) specification, which means they are well-supported across modern browsers.

### Benchmark Results
From the latest benchmark results:
- `Map.has` executed **169,454,928 times per second**.
- `Set.has` executed **161,844,352 times per second**.

This shows that, according to the benchmark conducted in the specified environment (Chrome 134 on macOS), `Map.has` offers a slightly better performance compared to `Set.has`. However, the performance difference is marginal, and the choice should be guided by the intended use case rather than the minuscule performance difference in this specific scenario.

### Alternatives
Alternatives to using `Set` and `Map` for similar functionality can include:
- **Arrays**: While you can use arrays to store unique values, checking for existence (`array.includes(value)`) is generally less efficient than `Set` and `Map`, especially with larger datasets.
- **Object Literals**: For situations where key-value pairing is required. However, `Map` is preferred due to better performance, especially for large datasets and when using non-string keys.
- **WeakSet and WeakMap**: These structures allow you to store weakly held references to objects, which means they do not prevent garbage collection, providing a unique use case compared to `Set` and `Map`.

In summary, the benchmark provides useful insights into the performance of two foundational data structures in JavaScript, helping developers make informed decisions based on their requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Map.has vs Set.has 01.04.2025 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Set.has vs Map.has

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Set.has

Map.has

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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