Benchmark: Map bench - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var esmap = new Map();
var omap = {};
var keys = [];

var cnt = 1e4;

while(cnt--){
	var v = Math.random();
	var k = keys[cnt] = 'key'+v;

	esmap.set(k,v);
	omap[k] = v;
}

Tests:

es get
var v; for(var i = 0; i<keys.length; i++){ v = esmap.get(keys[k]) }
objmap get
var v; for(var i = 0; i<keys.length; i++){ v = omap[keys[k]] }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
es get
objmap get

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark, titled "Map bench", tests the performance of JavaScript objects (`esmap` and `omap`) when accessing elements using their keys. The test consists of two individual test cases: `es get` (using `esmap.get()`) and `objmap get` (using `omap[keys[k]]`). The benchmark prepares a large dataset of 10,000 key-value pairs in both objects.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Object Iteration**: Both test cases iterate over the keys of the object using a `for` loop.
2. **Method Call**: In the `es get` test case, the `get()` method is called on the object, while in the `objmap get` test case, direct property access (`keys[k]`) is used.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Object Iteration (Both)**:
	+ Pros: Portable across different JavaScript engines and environments.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of iterating over the keys.
* **Method Call (es get)**:
	+ Pros: May be faster since it's a single method call, potentially optimized by the engine.
	+ Cons: Requires the `get()` method, which might not exist in older engines or when used with some libraries.
* **Direct Property Access (objmap get)**:
	+ Pros: Potentially faster since direct property access can be optimized by the engine.
	+ Cons: May require special handling in older engines or when using certain libraries.

**Library and Purpose**

In this benchmark, two libraries are used:

1. **Map**: A built-in JavaScript object that stores key-value pairs.
2. **Array**: Although not explicitly mentioned, an array (`keys`) is created to hold the keys for iteration.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax (Not applicable in this case)**

None of the test cases use special JavaScript features or syntax that require specific handling.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to create a similar benchmark, you could also consider adding other variations, such as:

* Using different data structures (e.g., `Set`, `WeakMap`) instead of `Map`.
* Adding additional overhead, like memoization or caching.
* Testing with different engine versions or environments.

Keep in mind that the specific options and variations will depend on your testing goals and the requirements of your benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Map bench (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: es get vs objmap get

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

es get

objmap get

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):