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 ]; }; } )(); let result; 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.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches to hash lookup: `hashLookup` and `hashSwitch`. Both methods are used to determine which hash algorithm (MD5, SHA1, or SHA256) corresponds to a given input string length.

**Hash Lookup (hashLookup)**

In this approach, an object (`hashes`) is created with predefined hash lengths as keys and corresponding algorithms as values. A function `hashLookup` is then defined to take a hash value as input and return the corresponding algorithm based on the hash length.

The pros of using this approach are:

* Easy to implement and maintain
* Fast lookup time since it's just a simple object lookup

However, there are some cons:

* Limited scalability due to the hardcoded object structure
* May not be suitable for large datasets or dynamic hash lengths

**Hash Switch (hashSwitch)**

This approach uses a `switch` statement to determine which algorithm corresponds to a given input string length. The pros of this approach are:

* More scalable than `hashLookup` since it can handle dynamic hash lengths
* Can be easily extended to support additional algorithms

However, there are some cons:

* Slower performance due to the overhead of the `switch` statement
* May require more code maintenance and updates compared to `hashLookup`

**Library: None**

In both test cases, no external libraries are used. However, it's worth noting that in a real-world scenario, you might want to consider using established hashing libraries like `crypto-js` or `hasher.js` for added functionality and security.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax: None**

Neither of the two approaches uses any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ES6 syntax.

**Benchmark Preparation Code Analysis**

The benchmark preparation code consists of defining constants for MD5, SHA1, and SHA256 hashes, as well as an invalid hash value. The `hashLookup` and `hashSwitch` functions are then defined to perform the respective lookups.

In both cases, a loop is used to execute the lookup function multiple times (10000 iterations) to gather performance data.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches for implementing hash lookup could include:

* Using an enum or a set data structure to map hash lengths to algorithms
* Employing caching mechanisms to improve performance
* Utilizing parallel processing or concurrency to speed up the lookup process

However, these alternatives might add complexity and may not be suitable for all use cases.

Overall, the `hashLookup` approach is simple, easy to understand, and performs well for small-scale applications. The `hashSwitch` approach offers more scalability but comes with a slight performance penalty.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/59.0.3071.104 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 59 on Mac OS X 10.12.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
hashlookup	1843.7 Ops/sec
hashswitch	149.1 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):