Benchmark: Map set/get - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var map = new Map();
var functions = [];
var count = 1000;

for( var i = 0; i < count; i++ )
{
  functions[ i ] = new Function( 'a', 'b', 'return a + b' );
}

var f;
var i;

Tests:

Map set
for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { map.set( functions[ i ], functions[ i ] ); }
Map get
for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { f = map.get( functions[ i ] ); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Map set
Map 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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case for measuring the speed of map set/get operations in JavaScript. Here's a breakdown of what's being tested:

**What is being tested?**

Two scenarios are being compared:

1. **Map Set**: This test case measures the time it takes to add `count` number of elements ( functions ) to a Map object using the `set()` method.
2. **Map Get**: This test case measures the time it takes to retrieve `count` number of elements from a Map object using the `get()` method.

**Options compared**

The options being compared are:

* Using a regular function (`new Function('a', 'b', 'return a + b')`) vs. a named function (`function add(a, b) { return a + b; }`)
* The impact of using a Map object with key-value pairs (where the value is also a function)

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Using regular functions**: This approach can lead to slower performance due to the overhead of creating a new function on each iteration. On the other hand, it's often used when working with older browsers or environments that don't support named functions.
2. **Named functions**: Using named functions (`function add(a, b) { return a + b; }`) can provide better performance since they are cached by the JavaScript engine, reducing the overhead of function creation on each iteration.

**Library/ Library Purpose**

In this benchmark, the `Map` object is used to store key-value pairs. The purpose of using a Map is to efficiently store and retrieve data, especially when dealing with large datasets or complex data structures.

**Special JS feature/Syntax**

The benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features like `let`, `const`, `async/await`, or arrow functions. It uses the traditional `var` and `new Function()` syntax.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to optimize map set/get operations, consider the following:

1. **Use a more efficient data structure**: Depending on your use case, you might be able to achieve better performance with other data structures like an object or an array.
2. **Pre-allocate memory**: If you know the size of the dataset in advance, you can pre-allocate memory for the Map object using `Map.prototype.set()` with a fixed number of elements.
3. **Cache frequently accessed elements**: If there are specific elements that are often retrieved from the Map, consider caching them in a separate data structure to reduce the overhead of `get()` operations.

By understanding these options and considerations, you can optimize your JavaScript code for better performance and scalability.

Related benchmarks:

Map set/get (version: 0)

Test map set/get speed

Comparing performance of: Map set vs Map get

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Map set

Map 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):