Benchmark: Map set test - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

null object
const objNul = Object.create(null); for (let i = 0; i < 256; i++){ objNul[String.fromCharCode(i)] = i; }
default object
const objDef = {} for (let i = 0; i < 256; i++){ objDef[String.fromCharCode(i)] = i; }
map
const mapDef = new Map(); for (let i = 0; i < 256; i++){ mapDef.set(String.fromCharCode(i), i); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
null object
default object
map

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!

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents three individual test cases for measuring performance in JavaScript. The tests aim to measure how quickly JavaScript can create and manipulate objects, specifically:

1. **Null object**: Creating an object with `Object.create(null)` and setting properties using `String.fromCharCode(i) = i`. This test simulates creating a null-like object.
2. **Default object**: Creating an empty object (`{}`) and setting properties using `String.fromCharCode(i) = i`. This test simulates creating a standard JavaScript object.
3. **Map**: Creating a Map instance and setting entries using `set(String.fromCharCode(i), i)`. This test simulates working with a Map data structure.

**Options compared**

The tests compare three different approaches:

1. **Null object**: Using `Object.create(null)` to create an object without a prototype chain.
2. **Default object**: Creating an empty object (`{}`) using the standard JavaScript constructor.
3. **Map**: Creating a new Map instance and setting entries using `set()`

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Null object**:
	* Pros: Can be faster since it doesn't create a prototype chain, which can be expensive in terms of memory allocation and lookup.
	* Cons: May not be as "JavaScript-like" as other approaches, and some features may not work correctly (e.g., `toString()` returns `[object Null]`, not the actual value).
2. **Default object**:
	* Pros: More "JavaScript-like", with a prototype chain that's closer to what you'd expect from a standard JavaScript object.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of creating a prototype chain and setting properties on it.
3. **Map**:
	* Pros: Provides a clear, explicit data structure for storing key-value pairs, which can lead to better performance and readability in certain cases.
	* Cons: May not be as optimized for property creation as the other approaches.

**Other considerations**

When working with these tests, keep in mind that:

* The `String.fromCharCode(i) = i` expression is used to set properties on each object. This can lead to interesting behavior if you're not careful (e.g., changes can affect the entire object).
* The tests are designed to be fast and concise, so consider the trade-offs between performance, readability, and maintainability when implementing your own JavaScript benchmarks.

**Library usage**

None of the provided test cases explicitly use a third-party library. However, if you're interested in exploring libraries for benchmarking or testing JavaScript performance, some popular options include:

* `Benchmark.js`
* `jsperf`
* `Speedometer.js`

These libraries can help you create more complex and reliable benchmarks, but may also add overhead and complexity.

**Special JS features**

None of the provided test cases explicitly use any special JavaScript features like async/await, Promises, or modern syntax (e.g., arrow functions, destructuring). However, if you're interested in exploring how these features affect performance, you can modify the benchmark scripts to include them.

Related benchmarks:

Map set test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: null object vs default object vs map

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

null object

default object

map

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):