Benchmark: nsdosdosjfdoisjdf

Script Preparation code:

var map = new Map()
var array2 = new Array(150)
var del = false;
for (var i = 0; i < 100; i ++) {
var insert = Math.random();
  map.set(i,insert)
  if (i == 50) del = insert;
  array2.push(insert)
}
var results = 0;

Tests:

map get
results = map.get(i)
Alloc get
for (var i = 0; i < array2.length; i ++) { if (i == 50) { results = array2[i] break; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
map get
Alloc get

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data to understand what is being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a JavaScript function that is supposed to be executed multiple times. In this case, there are two test cases: "map get" and "Alloc get". The script preparation code initializes various variables, including a `Map` object called `map`, an array `array2` with 150 elements, and a flag `del` set to `false`. The code then populates the map and array with random values.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared in this benchmark:

1. **Map.get()**: This option tests the performance of accessing a value in a `Map` object using its `get()` method.
2. **Alloc get**: This option is not immediately clear, but based on the context, it appears to test the performance of iterating through an array and accessing its elements.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **Map.get()**:
    *   Pros: `Map` objects are designed for efficient key-value lookup, making this method suitable for fast lookups.
    *   Cons: The performance gain may be limited compared to other methods if the map is very large or if the elements have a small range of values.
*   **Alloc get**:
    *   Pros: This option allows testing array iteration and element access, which can be useful for understanding JavaScript's memory management and garbage collection.
    *   Cons: The performance may not be as efficient as `Map.get()` since it involves iterating through the entire array to find the desired element.

**Library and Purpose**

The provided script uses two built-in JavaScript objects:

*   **`Map` object**: A `Map` is a data structure that stores key-value pairs. It provides an efficient way to store and retrieve values by their keys.
*   **`Array` object**: An array is a collection of elements stored in contiguous memory locations.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None are mentioned, so we will move on to the next section.

**Other Considerations**

When designing benchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider factors such as:

*   **Size and scope of data**: The benchmark size should be relevant to real-world applications. In this case, the map and array have a fixed size.
*   **Hardware and software environment**: The benchmark results may vary depending on the machine running the test (CPU, RAM, OS, etc.). This is reflected in the provided browser information.
*   **Garbage collection and memory management**: JavaScript's garbage collection mechanism can impact performance. Benchmarks like this one help understand how different methods handle memory allocation.

**Alternatives**

For similar benchmarks:

1.  **JBM (JavaScript Benchmarking Tool)**: A command-line tool for running, comparing, and analyzing JavaScript benchmark results.
2.  **Benchmark.js**: A lightweight library for creating and running JavaScript microbenchmarks.
3.  **Google's JSPerf**: A web-based platform for testing and comparing the performance of different JavaScript code snippets.

These alternatives provide a range of features, such as support for various browsers, execution modes (e.g., synchronous or asynchronous), and output formats (e.g., CSV or JSON). They can be used to create more comprehensive benchmarks or extend the functionality of existing ones.

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
map get	2753158.8 Ops/sec
Alloc get	194510.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

nsdosdosjfdoisjdf (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: map get vs Alloc get

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

map get

Alloc get

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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