Benchmark: map vs fast map - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://bundle.run/fast.js@0.1.1'></script>

Script Preparation code:

const lim = 100000;
let i = 0;
var a = [];
while (i < lim) {
	a.push({memb: i});
	i++;
}
function getMemb(av) {
	return av.memb;
}

Tests:

regular map
var b = a.map(getMemb);
fast.js map
var b = fast_js.map(a, getMemb);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
regular map
fast.js map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 132 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
regular map	1501.2 Ops/sec
fast.js map	6649.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two ways of mapping an array in JavaScript: using the native `map()` function and using a custom implementation provided by the "fast.js" library.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates an array `a` with 100,000 elements, where each element is an object with a single property `memb`. The purpose of this step is to create a large dataset for testing.

```javascript
const lim = 100000;
let i = 0;
var a = [];
while (i < lim) {
  a.push({ memb: i });
  i++;
}
```

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes the "fast.js" library, which is used to create the custom mapping implementation.

```javascript
<script src='https://bundle.run/fast.js@0.1.1'></script>
```

**Benchmark Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Regular Map**: Uses the native `map()` function.
2. **Fast.js Map**: Uses the "fast.js" library to create a custom mapping implementation.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches on a large dataset.

**Options Compared**

* **Native Map (JavaScript)**: The built-in `map()` function, which iterates over the array and applies the callback function to each element.
* **Fast.js Map**: A custom mapping implementation provided by the "fast.js" library, which likely uses a more efficient algorithm or optimized code.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Native Map (JavaScript)**:
	+ Pros: Easy to use, widely supported, and well-maintained.
	+ Cons: May be slower for large datasets due to the overhead of the `map()` function.
* **Fast.js Map**:
	+ Pros: Can potentially be faster than the native `map()` function, especially for very large datasets.
	+ Cons: Requires including an external library, which may introduce additional dependencies.

**Library - fast.js**

The "fast.js" library is a custom implementation of various JavaScript algorithms and data structures. In this case, it provides a mapping implementation that is likely optimized for performance. The exact algorithm used by the "fast.js" library is not specified in the benchmark definition.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax (None)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

* **Benchmarking Framework**: The benchmark uses a web-based framework that allows users to create and run microbenchmarks. This framework likely provides additional features, such as code execution, timing, and statistics analysis.
* **Hardware and Software Variability**: The benchmark results are reported for Chrome 74 on Windows desktops, which may not be representative of all possible hardware and software configurations.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for mapping large datasets in JavaScript include:

* **Array.prototype.reduce()**: An alternative to `map()` that can be used for reducing arrays.
* **Dense Hash Tables**: A data structure that allows for fast lookups and updates, potentially faster than the native `map()` function.
* **Custom Iterators**: Writing custom iterators or using third-party libraries like RxJS or Lodash can provide more control over the mapping process.

Related benchmarks:

map vs fast map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: regular map vs fast.js map

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

regular map

fast.js map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):