Benchmark: indexOf vs map - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var HAYSTACK_COUNT = 10;
var NEEDLE_COUNT = 10;

function hasWithIndexOf(needle, haystack) {
	return haystack.indexOf(needle) !== -1;
}

function hasWithMap(needle, haystackMap) {
	return haystackMap[needle];
}


function prepareMap(haystack) {
	var map = {};
	for (var i=0, len=haystack.length; i<len; ++i) {
    	map[haystack[i]] = true;
    }
    return map;
}
  
         
var haystack = [];
for (var i=0; i<HAYSTACK_COUNT; ++i) {
  	haystack.push('00' + i);
}

var haystackMap = prepareMap(haystack);

Tests:

indexOf
for (var i=0; i<NEEDLE_COUNT; ++i) { hasWithIndexOf('404', haystack); }
map new each pass
var haystackMapLocal = prepareMap(haystack); for (var i=0; i<NEEDLE_COUNT; ++i) { hasWithMap('404', haystackMapLocal); }
map cached
for (var i=0; i<NEEDLE_COUNT; ++i) { hasWithMap('404', haystackMap); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
indexOf
map new each pass
map cached

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days 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 comparing the performance of two approaches: using `indexOf` and using a map to search for an element in an array.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a script that prepares an array (`haystack`) with 10 elements, each represented by a string in the format "00i", where i is an integer from 0 to 9. The script also defines two functions:

* `hasWithIndexOf(needle, haystack)`: This function uses the `indexOf` method to search for the `needle` element in the `haystack` array.
* `hasWithMap(needle, haystackMap)`: This function creates a map (`haystackMap`) from the `haystack` array and then searches for the `needle` element in the map.

The script also defines a helper function `prepareMap(haystack)` that creates a map from the `haystack` array.

**Options being compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Using `indexOf`**: This approach uses the `indexOf` method to search for the `needle` element in the `haystack` array.
2. **Using a map**: This approach creates a map from the `haystack` array and then searches for the `needle` element in the map.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Using `indexOf`**:
	* Pros: Simple to implement, widely supported by browsers.
	* Cons: Can be slow for large arrays or when searching for an element that is not present in the array.
2. **Using a map**:
	* Pros: Can be faster than using `indexOf` for large arrays, especially when searching for elements that are already present in the map.
	* Cons: Requires more memory to create and store the map, which can be a disadvantage for small arrays.

**Library and its purpose**

The `prepareMap()` function uses the JavaScript built-in object literal syntax to create a map from the `haystack` array. The purpose of this function is to create a data structure that allows for fast lookups of elements in the array.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

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

**Other alternatives**

If you want to compare the performance of other search algorithms, here are some alternatives:

1. **Linear search**: This approach searches for an element by iterating through each element in the array one by one.
2. **Binary search**: This approach uses a binary search algorithm to find an element in the array, which is faster than linear search but only works for sorted arrays.
3. **Hashing**: This approach uses a hash function to map elements to indices in an array, allowing for fast lookups.

Note that each of these alternatives has its own pros and cons, and may not be suitable for all use cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/55.0.2883.95 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 55 on Mac OS X 10.12.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
indexOf	273489.9 Ops/sec
map new each pass	183387.8 Ops/sec
map cached	317355.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

indexOf vs map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: indexOf vs map new each pass vs map cached

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

indexOf

map new each pass

map cached

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):