Benchmark: Map vs Object 123

Script Preparation code:

const map = new Map();
const obj = {};

const count = 100
const l = []

for (let x=0; x<=count; x++) {
  l.push([[''+x, x]])
}

function bMap() {
  'use strict'
  for (let j = 0; i+j < count; j++){
    for (let i = 0; i < count; i++) {
      const [k, v] = l[i]
      const n = map.get(k)
      if (n !== undefined) {
          map.set(k, v)
      } else {
          map.set(k, v+j)
      }
    }
  }
}

function bObj() {
  'use strict'
  for (let j = 0; i+j < count; j++){
    for (let i = 0; i < count; i++) {
      const [k, v] = l[i]
      const n = obj[k]
      if (n !== undefined) {
          obj[k] = v
      } else {
          obj[k] = v+j
      }
    }
  }
}

Tests:

Map lookup
bMap()
Obj lookup
bObj()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Map lookup
Obj lookup

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.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches for storing and retrieving data: using a `Map` object versus an object literal (`obj`).

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Map Lookup (bMap())**: This approach uses a `Map` object to store key-value pairs, where the key is a string and the value is also a string. The function iterates over two nested loops to populate the map and then performs lookups using the `get()` method.
2. **Object Literal Lookup (bObj())**: This approach uses an object literal (`obj`) to store key-value pairs, where the key is a string and the value is also a string. The function iterates over two nested loops to populate the object and then performs lookups using the bracket notation (`obj[key]`).

**Pros and Cons**

**Map Lookup (bMap())**

Pros:

* **Faster lookups**: Maps are optimized for fast lookups, with an average time complexity of O(1).
* **More memory-efficient**: Maps use less memory than object literals, especially when dealing with large datasets.

Cons:

* **Less intuitive**: Maps can be less intuitive to work with, especially for developers who are more familiar with objects.
* **More complex initialization**: Maps require the `Map` constructor and explicit key-value pairs, which can be more verbose than object literals.

**Object Literal Lookup (bObj())**

Pros:

* **More intuitive**: Object literals are often more familiar and easier to work with, especially for developers who are already comfortable with objects.
* **Less complex initialization**: Object literals require only the assignment of key-value pairs, making them simpler to initialize.

Cons:

* **Slower lookups**: Object literals use bracket notation, which can be slower than map lookups due to the string lookup and access overhead.
* **More memory-intensive**: Object literals can lead to more memory usage, especially when dealing with large datasets.

**Other Considerations**

Both approaches have their trade-offs. When working with large datasets or high-performance requirements, a `Map` might be a better choice due to its optimized lookups and memory efficiency. However, for smaller datasets or cases where code readability is crucial, an object literal might be more suitable.

**Library/Dependency Details (None)**

There are no libraries or dependencies explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. Both approaches rely on built-in JavaScript features: `Map` objects and object literals.

**Special JS Features/Syntax (None)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark, such as async/await, generators, or decorators.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for storing and retrieving data include:

* **Array-based solutions**: Using arrays to store key-value pairs, which can be more memory-intensive but offer simpler initialization.
* **IndexedDB**: A client-side storage system that provides a more structured and efficient way of storing data.
* **Native storage mechanisms**: Depending on the specific use case, native storage mechanisms like `localStorage` or `sessionStorage` might be suitable alternatives.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require different implementation approaches and might not provide the same level of performance as optimized map-based solutions.

Related benchmarks:

Map vs Object 123 (version: 0)

Lookup of map vs object

Comparing performance of: Map lookup vs Obj lookup

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Map lookup

Obj lookup

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):