Benchmark: map vs array lol ddddd

Tests:

ffff
const dd = new Map(); dd.set("AA", true); dd.set("BB", true); dd.set("CC", true); dd.set("DD", true); dd.set("EE", true); dd.set("HH", true); dd.set("OO", true); dd.set("PP", true); dd.has("HH");
dd
const dd = ["AA", "BB", "CC", "DD", "EE", "HH", "OO", "PP"]; dd.includes("HH");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
ffff
dd

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 on MeasureThat.net.

The provided benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using a `Map` data structure and iterating through an array. The test cases are:

1. `ffff`: Tests if the "has" method is faster when used with a `Map`.
2. `dd`: Tests if the "includes" method is faster when used with an array.

**Map vs Array**

The pros of using a `Map` data structure for this benchmark are:

* Efficient lookups: Maps provide fast lookups, making it suitable for this test.
* Memory efficiency: Maps use less memory compared to arrays, which can be beneficial in terms of overall system performance.

On the other hand, the cons are:

* Complexity: Working with `Map` objects can be more complex than working with arrays, especially when it comes to iterating and manipulating data.
* Browser support: Not all browsers support `Map` objects natively; some may require polyfills or alternative implementations.

The pros of using an array for this benchmark are:

* Simplicity: Iterating through an array is often straightforward and easy to understand.
* Wide browser support: Arrays are a fundamental data structure in JavaScript, making them widely supported across browsers.

However, the cons are:

* Slower lookups: Arrays require more computation to find an element, making them less efficient for this test compared to `Map`.
* Memory overhead: Arrays can consume more memory than `Map` objects, especially for large datasets.

**Library Usage**

The test case "dd" uses no external libraries, relying solely on the JavaScript built-in `Array` and `String` types.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. The code is straightforward JavaScript without any advanced or experimental features.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to this benchmark could include:

* Comparing the performance of `Set` data structures against arrays.
* Evaluating the efficiency of using `WeakMap` objects versus regular `Map` objects for cache storage.
* Testing the performance of different iteration methods, such as `forEach`, `for...of`, or `map()`.
* Investigating the impact of array sizes on lookup performance.

In summary, this benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: using a `Map` data structure and iterating through an array. The results indicate that `Map` is faster for lookups, but the choice between these approaches depends on the specific use case and trade-offs between complexity, memory efficiency, and simplicity.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.4324.150 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
ffff	1798257.8 Ops/sec
dd	808793536.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

map vs array lol ddddd (version: 0)

dd

Comparing performance of: ffff vs dd

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

ffff

dd

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):