Benchmark: Map vs Array vs Object set uint32 key speed11

Script Preparation code:

var map = new Map();
var arr = [];
var obj = {};

var randomU32 = function() {
	return Math.random() * (1 << 31) >>> 0;
}

Tests:

Map
map.set(randomU32(), true);
Array
arr[randomU32()] = true;
Object
obj[randomU32()] = true;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Map
Array
Object

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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 is tested, the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**What is being tested?**

The test compares the performance of three data structures:

1. `Map` (JavaScript's built-in Map object)
2. `Array` (a plain JavaScript array)
3. `Object` (a plain JavaScript object)

Each data structure is used to set a value at a randomly generated key (`randomU32()`). The test measures the execution speed of each data structure.

**Options compared:**

1. **Map**: Uses the `set()` method on the Map object.
2. **Array**: Uses the indexing syntax (`arr[randomU32()] = true;`) to set a value at a specific index.
3. **Object**: Uses the dot notation or bracket notation (`obj[randomU32()] = true;`).

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Map**:
	* Pros:
		+ Fast lookups ( O(1) average time complexity).
		+ Efficient use of memory, as keys are not stored in order.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires the `set()` method, which might have overhead due to its syntax.
2. **Array**:
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and widely supported indexing syntax.
		+ Often used in caching and array-based data structures.
	* Cons:
		+ Slow lookups ( O(n) average time complexity), as the browser needs to traverse the array.
3. **Object**:
	* Pros:
		+ Similar to arrays, but uses dot notation or bracket notation for indexing, which might be more readable.
		+ Can be used in inheritance-based programming.
	* Cons:
		+ Slow lookups ( O(n) average time complexity), as the browser needs to traverse the object's properties.

**Other considerations:**

1. **Memory usage**: The Map data structure uses more memory than both arrays and objects, due to its key-value pairs storage mechanism.
2. **Cache performance**: Arrays are often used in caching mechanisms, while Maps can be slower due to their more complex storage scheme.
3. **Readability**: Object notation might be considered more readable for certain developers, especially those with a background in XML or other data-centric programming languages.

**Libraries and special JS features:**

None of the test cases use specific libraries or special JavaScript features like async/await, generators, or Promises.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives to compare performance might include:

1. **Set**: A built-in JavaScript object that provides fast lookup times ( O(1) average time complexity).
2. **WeakMap**: Similar to a Map but with weaker references, which can be useful for caching and reducing memory usage.
3. **Sparse arrays or objects**: Data structures designed to store only some of the expected keys, potentially reducing memory usage.

Keep in mind that benchmarking specific performance characteristics requires careful consideration of various factors, including hardware, software configurations, and test case implementation details.

Related benchmarks:

Map vs Array vs Object set uint32 key speed11 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Map vs Array vs Object

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Map

Array

Object

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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