Benchmark: Map vs Object part 4

Script Preparation code:

var map = new Map();
var obj = {};
let a;
for (let i = 0;i < 100000; i++) {
	map.set(i, i);
  	obj[i] = i;
}

Tests:

Map lookup
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { a = map.get(i); }
Obj lookup
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { a = obj[i]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Map lookup
Obj lookup

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 and explain what is being tested, compared, and its pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that measures the performance of looking up values in either a `Map` or an object (`obj`). The script preparation code initializes two data structures: a `Map` instance named `map` and an empty object `obj`. A loop iterates 100,000 times, setting each index `i` to its corresponding value `i` in both the map and the object.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Map lookup**: The first test case uses the `map.get()` method to retrieve values from the `map`. This approach is typically faster for large datasets because maps are implemented as hash tables, which allow for efficient lookups with an average time complexity of O(1).
2. **Object lookup**: The second test case uses the bracket notation (`obj[i]`) to access values in the `obj` object. Object lookups have a time complexity of O(1) on average but can be slower than map lookups due to additional overhead.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Map lookup:**
	+ Pros:
		- Generally faster for large datasets.
		- Less memory allocation required since maps are implemented as hash tables.
	+ Cons:
		- May have higher cache misses due to the nature of hash table lookups.
		- Some older browsers might not support `map.get()` efficiently.
* **Object lookup:**
	+ Pros:
		- More widely supported across older browsers.
		- Can be easier to read and understand for some developers.
	+ Cons:
		- Typically slower than map lookups for large datasets.
		- More memory allocation required since objects are implemented as arrays of key-value pairs.

**Library**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's likely that the `Map` API is being used natively in JavaScript, which is part of the ECMAScript standard.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's necessary for the test itself. If you'd like to explore more advanced topics, you could consider looking into other benchmarks that utilize specific features like async/await, generators, or arrow functions.

**Alternatives**

For those interested in exploring alternative approaches, some possible alternatives could be:

1. **Using a library like Lodash's `get()` method**: Lodash provides an implementation of the `get()` method for arrays and objects, which can offer better performance than the built-in methods.
2. **Using a custom indexing data structure**: Depending on your specific use case, you might consider creating a custom indexing data structure that leverages more efficient algorithms or data structures, like a trie or a skip list.
3. **Measuring performance using a different benchmarking framework**: If you're interested in exploring other frameworks, you could try using tools like Benchmark.js or jsPerf to create and run your own benchmarks.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case and requirements. It's essential to consider factors like performance, memory usage, and compatibility when selecting a benchmarking strategy for your project.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 15_2_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/15.2 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 15 on iOS 15.2.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Map lookup	695.6 Ops/sec
Obj lookup	692.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Map vs Object part 4 (version: 0)

Lookup of map vs object

Comparing performance of: Map lookup vs Obj lookup

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Map lookup

Obj lookup

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):