Benchmark: WeakMap vs arrays read performancesadsasd

Script Preparation code:

var keys = [];
var values = [];
var weakmap = new WeakMap();
for (let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) {
    const keyobj = {
        key: i
    };
    const valobj = {
        val: `val_${i}`
    };
    keys[i] = keyobj;
    values[i] = valobj;
    weakmap.set(keyobj, valobj);
}

Tests:

arrays
for (let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { const key = keys[i]; const val = values[key.key]; }
weakmap
for (let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { const key = keys[i]; const val = weakmap.get(key); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
arrays
weakmap

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 and explain what is tested in each benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The `Script Preparation Code` section creates two objects: `keys` and `values`, both of size 100,000. It then creates a WeakMap object called `weakmap` and sets 100,000 key-value pairs using the WeakMap's `set()` method. The keys are objects with a single property `key`, and the values are objects with a single property `val`.

The `Html Preparation Code` section is empty.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **"arrays"`**
	* The `Benchmark Definition` uses a traditional array-based indexing to access the values in the `keys` array.
	* The test accesses each value in the `values` array using the corresponding key from the `keys` array, like this: `const val = values[key.key]`.
2. **"weakmap"`**
	* The `Benchmark Definition` uses the WeakMap's `get()` method to access the values associated with a given key.
	* The test accesses each value in the `weakmap` using its corresponding key from the `keys` array, like this: `const val = weakmap.get(key)`.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare the performance of traditional array-based indexing (`arrays`) against the WeakMap's `get()` method (`weakmap`).

**Pros and Cons**

* **Arrays**
	+ Pros:
		- Simple and well-known data structure.
		- No additional overhead for map operations.
	- Cons:
		- Performance may degrade with large datasets due to array lookup.
		- Does not take advantage of WeakMap's optimized caching mechanisms.
* **WeakMap**
	+ Pros:
		- Optimized for cache hits and reduced memory usage.
		- Can improve performance with large datasets by reducing the number of lookups.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires careful key management to avoid garbage collection issues.
		- May not be suitable for all use cases due to its specific design.

**Library**

The WeakMap is a built-in JavaScript object that stores mappings between values and keys. It's designed to efficiently store and retrieve data while minimizing memory usage, making it particularly useful for caching large datasets.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax, but it does utilize the WeakMap object, which is a built-in feature in modern JavaScript. If we were to modify the benchmark to include special features or syntax, it would likely involve additional considerations such as:

* Using modern JavaScript features like `async/await` or `for...of` loops.
* Incorporating web API-specific optimizations (e.g., using Web Workers for parallel computation).
* Experimenting with different caching strategies or data structures.

**Other Alternatives**

If the benchmark were to include alternative implementations, we might consider:

1. **Object-oriented approach**: Using a custom class or object that mimics the WeakMap's behavior.
2. **Using a hash table**: Implementing a simple hash table using JavaScript objects and arrays.
3. **Caching libraries**: Using specialized caching libraries like Redis or Memcached to optimize performance.

These alternatives would require additional considerations, such as trade-offs in terms of simplicity, maintainability, and compatibility with different browsers or environments.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:92.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/92.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 92 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
arrays	2433.2 Ops/sec
weakmap	62.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

WeakMap vs arrays read performancesadsasd (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: arrays vs weakmap

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

arrays

weakmap

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):