Benchmark: testestets - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

map
map = new Map(), n = 1000000; for (let i = 0; i < n; i++) { map.set(i, i); }
obj
let obj = {}, n = 1000000; for (let i = 0; i < n; i++) { obj[i] = i; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
map
obj

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in these benchmark cases.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided Benchmark Definition JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark. It contains four essential fields:

1. **Name**: The name of the benchmark, which is "testestets" (note that this might be a placeholder or typo).
2. **Description**: A null value, indicating that there's no detailed description for this benchmark.
3. **Script Preparation Code**: Another null value, meaning no specific code needs to be executed before running the benchmark.
4. **Html Preparation Code**: Also null, indicating no HTML code is required for setup.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **map**
	* The **Benchmark Definition** script creates a new `Map` object and sets 1 million entries in it using a loop.
2. **obj**
	* This script creates an empty object `obj` and sets 1 million properties on it using a loop.

**Options Compared**

In these benchmark cases, we're comparing two fundamental JavaScript data structures:

1. **Objects** (`obj`)
2. **Maps** (`map`)

The main difference between the two is how they store and retrieve values.

* Objects use key-value pairs stored in an array-like structure.
* Maps use a hash table (a data structure that stores key-value pairs in a way that allows for efficient lookup, insertion, and deletion of elements).

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

**Objects**

Pros:

* Easier to create and manipulate
* More intuitive for developers familiar with traditional object-oriented programming

Cons:

* Less efficient for large datasets due to the overhead of array-like storage
* May lead to slower performance when dealing with large amounts of data

**Maps**

Pros:

* More efficient for large datasets, as they use a hash table that allows for faster lookups and insertions
* Can handle duplicate keys (the value associated with each key is ignored in Maps)

Cons:

* Less intuitive for developers unfamiliar with traditional object-oriented programming
* May require more code to set up and work with

**Other Considerations**

When deciding between objects and maps, consider the following factors:

* What type of data are you working with? If it's a large dataset with unique identifiers (keys), a map might be a better choice. If you're working with traditional key-value pairs, an object might suffice.
* Are you concerned about performance? In that case, a map is likely to be faster for large datasets.

**Library and Special JS Features**

In the provided benchmark cases, no specific libraries are used or special JavaScript features like async/await, Promises, or modern syntax (e.g., arrow functions) are employed. The focus is on comparing basic data structure performance.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring more microbenchmarks or alternatives to MeasureThat.net, consider the following options:

* **jsperf**: A classic JavaScript benchmarking tool that allows users to compare the performance of different code snippets.
* **Benchmark.js**: A popular, high-performance benchmarking library for Node.js and browser environments.
* **BenchMarkU**: An online platform offering a wide range of microbenchmarks for various programming languages and platforms.

I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested in these benchmark cases!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/105.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 105 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
map	2.0 Ops/sec
obj	33.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

testestets (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: map vs obj

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

map

obj

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):