Benchmark: lookup vs hash - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

hashlookup
const md5 = '11111111111111111111111111111111'; const sha1 = '1111111111111111111111111111111111111111'; const sha256 = '1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111'; const invalid = '21345'; const size = 10000; const hashLookup = ( () => { const hashes = { 32: 'md5', 64: 'sha256', 40: 'sha1' }; return function( hash ) { return hashes[ hash.length ]; }; } )(); for ( let i = 0; i < size; i++ ) { result = hashLookup(md5); result = hashLookup(sha1); result = hashLookup(sha256); result = hashLookup(invalid); }
hashswitch
let md5 = '11111111111111111111111111111111'; let sha1 = '1111111111111111111111111111111111111111'; let sha256 = '1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111'; let invalid = '21345'; const size = 10000; hashSwitch = function hashSwitch( hash ) { switch( hash.length ) { case 32: { return 'md5'; } case 40: { return 'sha1'; } case 64: { return 'sha256'; } } } let result; for ( let i = 0; i < size; i++ ) { result = hashSwitch(md5); result = hashSwitch(sha1); result = hashSwitch(sha256); result = hashSwitch(invalid); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
hashlookup
hashswitch

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents two benchmark test cases on MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of two approaches to determine the hash algorithm: `hashLookup` and `hashSwitch`. The tests aim to measure how fast these approaches can execute a series of hash lookups.

**Hash Lookup (hashLookup)**

In this approach, a lookup table is used to map hash values to their corresponding algorithms. The test creates an object with predefined hash lengths for MD5, SHA1, and SHA256 (32, 40, and 64 bits respectively). A function `hashLookup` is defined, which returns the algorithm name based on the input hash length.

**Pros:**

* Easy to implement and maintain
* Fast execution, since it uses a precomputed lookup table

**Cons:**

* Requires an initial setup of the lookup table, which can be time-consuming
* May not perform well for unknown or invalid hash values

**Hash Switch (hashSwitch)**

In this approach, a `switch` statement is used to determine the algorithm name based on the input hash length.

**Pros:**

* No need for an initial setup of a lookup table
* Can handle unknown or invalid hash values more gracefully

**Cons:**

* May be slower due to the overhead of the `switch` statement
* Can lead to ambiguity if multiple algorithms have the same number of bits (e.g., 32-bit MD5 and SHA1)

**Other Considerations**

* The tests use predefined hash values for MD5, SHA1, and SHA256. In a real-world scenario, these values would likely be generated dynamically or retrieved from an external source.
* The `hashLookup` approach uses a JavaScript object to store the lookup table, which can lead to performance issues if the table grows large.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches to determine the hash algorithm could include:

1. **Hash function lookups**: Use a library like `crypto` (Node.js) or `hashes` (Browser) to perform hash lookups.
2. **Algorithm detection**: Implement a heuristic-based approach to detect the type of hash algorithm based on its properties, such as the number of bits or the output length.
3. **Machine learning-based approaches**: Train a machine learning model to predict the hash algorithm based on input data.

**Libraries and Special Features**

In this benchmark, no specific JavaScript library is used beyond the built-in `crypto` module (Node.js) or none (Browser). No special features like async/await, promises, or modern JavaScript syntax are employed.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/59.0.3071.115 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 59 on Mac OS X 10.11.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
hashlookup	100.9 Ops/sec
hashswitch	132.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lookup vs hash (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: hashlookup vs hashswitch

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

hashlookup

hashswitch

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):