Benchmark: Array find vs Map get fixed

Script Preparation code:

var list = [{
	id: "a",
  name: "asd",
  age: 12,
  isValid: false,
},
 {
	id: "b",
  name: "bsd",
  age: 12,
  isValid: false,
},
 {
	id: "c",
  name: "c",
  age: 12,
  isValid: false,
},
             {
	id: "d",
  name: "dsd",
  age: 12,
  isValid: false,
},
             {
	id: "e",
  name: "esd",
  age: 12,
  isValid: false,
},
                          {
	id: "f",
  name: "fsd",
  age: 12,
  isValid: false,
},
                          {
	id: "g",
  name: "gsd",
  age: 12,
  isValid: false,
},
                          {
	id: "h",
  name: "hsd",
  age: 12,
  isValid: false,
},
                          {
	id: "i",
  name: "isd",
  age: 12,
  isValid: false,
},];

var map = new Map();
list.forEach((obj) => {
  map.set(obj.id, obj);
});

var id = "e";

Tests:

Array
const foundObj = list.find((obj) => obj.id === id); foundObj.isValid = true;
Map
const foundObj2 = map.get(id); foundObj2.isValid = true;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array
Map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/94.0.4606.71 Safari/537.36 Edg/94.0.992.38

Browser/OS: Chrome 94 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array	1863870.8 Ops/sec
Map	5437478.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches to find an object in a list:

1. Using the `find` method on an array (`Array` test case)
2. Using the `get` method on a `Map` object (`Map` test case)

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

* **Array**: Using the `find` method to find an object in the list by comparing its `id` property with a given `id`.
* **Map**: Using the `get` method to retrieve an object from a `Map` object, where the key is the `id` of the object.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Array (find)**

Pros:

* Simple and intuitive
* Wide support across different browsers and versions
* Can be used for searching in various data structures, not just lists

Cons:

* May be slower than `Map` for large datasets due to the need to iterate over the entire list
* May not perform well if the list is unsorted or has a large number of duplicate keys

**Map (get)**

Pros:

* Much faster than `Array` for large datasets, as it uses hash-based lookup
* Can reduce memory usage compared to storing all data in an array

Cons:

* Requires creating a `Map` object and populating it with data, which may add overhead
* May not be suitable for searching unsorted or non-key-value data structures

**Library Used**

In the `Script Preparation Code`, a `Map` library is created using `var map = new Map();`. The `list.forEach` method is used to populate the map with objects.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the use of `let const` (e.g., `const foundObj`) and template literals (`\r\n\tid: "a"\r\n`) are modern JavaScript features.

**Other Alternatives**

For searching in lists:

* Using a custom function to iterate over the list and check each element's properties
* Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js for array utilities

For searching in maps:

* Using a custom function to iterate over the map and access each value's properties
* Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js for object utilities

Related benchmarks:

Array find vs Map get fixed (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array vs Map

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array

Map

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):