Benchmark: keys VS map - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

map
const myObj = {one:1,two:2,three:3} const myMap = new Map(Object.entries(myObj)) myMap.has("one")
keys
const myObj = {one:1,two:2,three:3} const keys = Object.keys(myObj) keys.includes("one")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
map
keys

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:90.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/90.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 90 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
map	657457.9 Ops/sec
keys	7904261.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmarking setup and explain what's being tested, compared, and discussed.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two test cases:

1. `keys VS map`
2. `map` (seems to be a typo, and it should match `keys VS map`)

However, upon closer inspection, the "Test Name" field in the individual test cases seems to have incorrect values. It appears that the actual test name is indeed `keys VS map`. Let's proceed with this interpretation.

**What's being tested**

The benchmark tests two approaches for checking if a specific key exists in an object:

1. **Using the `Object.keys()` method**: This approach iterates over the keys of the object and checks if the target key (`"one"`) is included.
2. **Using the `Map` data structure**: This approach creates a `Map` instance from the object's entries, has the key `"one"` in the map, and then checks for its existence.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

Pros and Cons:

* Using `Object.keys()`:
	+ Pros: Easy to implement, straightforward logic.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to iteration overhead, especially for large objects.
* Using `Map`:
	+ Pros: Can be faster for lookups, as maps are optimized for this use case. However, creating a map might have additional overhead compared to using `Object.keys()`.
	+ Cons: Requires more memory to create the map and iterate over its entries.

**Other considerations**

* The benchmark uses a simple object with a single key-value pair (`{one:1,two:2,three:3}`). This might not accurately represent real-world scenarios, where objects often have many keys.
* There's no consideration for potential edge cases like empty objects or null inputs.

**Library and special JS features**

The benchmark does not use any external libraries. However, it leverages some specific JavaScript features:

* The `Map` data structure is used, which was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).
* The `Object.keys()` method is used to iterate over the object's keys, which is also part of ES6.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives for checking if a key exists in an object include:

1. Using the `in` operator directly on the object: `if ("one" in myObj)`.
2. Using the `hasOwnProperty()` method: `myObj.hasOwnProperty("one")`.
3. Using a library like Lodash's `includes()` function (not used in this benchmark).

These alternatives might have varying performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the approaches tested in this benchmark.

I hope this explanation helps!

Related benchmarks:

keys VS map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: map vs keys

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

map

keys

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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