Benchmark: Map bench2 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var esmap = new Map();
var omap = {};
var keys = [];
var values = [];
var cnt = 1e4;

while(cnt--){
	var v = Math.random();
  	values.push(v);
	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[i]) }
objmap get
var v; for(var i = 0; i<keys.length; i++){ v = omap[keys[i]] }

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.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case for measuring the performance of JavaScript's Map data structure, specifically the `get` method. The benchmark is designed to create a large map and then retrieve values from it using two different approaches: direct access through the map object (`es get`) and accessing the values through an object with the same keys as the map (`objmap get`). We'll break down what's being tested, compare the options, and discuss pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition json provides information about the script preparation code, which creates a large Map data structure using `var esmap = new Map();`. The `esmap` object is populated with key-value pairs using a loop, where each iteration generates a random value (`v`) and assigns it to both the map and an object (`omap`) with the same keys. This process creates a large dataset for the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **es get**: Measures the performance of direct access through the `get` method of the `esmap` object.
2. **objmap get**: Measures the performance of accessing values through an object (`omap`) with the same keys as the map.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

* **Direct Access (es get)**:
	+ Pros: Simple, efficient, and fast access to map values.
	+ Cons: May incur additional overhead due to the type system, which can slow down lookups in some cases.
* **Object-Based Access (objmap get)**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster than direct access for large datasets, as it avoids the potential overhead of type checking and coercion.
	+ Cons: Requires creating an additional object with the same keys as the map, which can lead to increased memory usage.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

The benchmark uses a standard JavaScript `Map` data structure, which is implemented in V8 (the JavaScript engine used by Chrome). There are no specific libraries or special JavaScript features mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, note that some JavaScript engines may optimize certain operations differently due to their implementation details.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for measuring performance, here are a few:

* **Using an array instead of a Map**: Instead of using a `Map` object, you could use an array with the same keys and values. This approach would avoid the overhead of creating a map object.
* **Using a custom implementation**: You could implement your own data structure or algorithm for accessing values in the map, which might provide better performance in certain scenarios.

In summary, the benchmark measures the performance of two approaches to accessing values in a JavaScript Map: direct access through the `get` method and accessing through an object with the same keys. The choice between these approaches depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Map bench2 (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):