Benchmark: Map.get() vs Array.find()

Script Preparation code:

dataArr = [...Array(10000)].map((_, id) => ({ id, data: Math.random() }));
dataMap = new Map(dataArr.map(v => [v.id, v]));

Tests:

Array.find()
dataArr.find((item) => item.id === Math.floor(Math.random() * 10000))
Map.get()
dataMap.get(Math.floor(Math.random() * 10000))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.find()
Map.get()

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing two JavaScript methods: `Map.get()` and `Array.find()`. Both methods are used to find an element in a collection (an array or a map).

**What options are compared?**

In this benchmark, we have two variations:

1. **Array.find()**: This method finds the first element in the array that satisfies the provided condition.
2. **Map.get()**: This method finds the value associated with the given key in the map.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

**Array.find():**

Pros:

* More intuitive for searching arrays
* Can be used to find the first matching element, which is often sufficient

Cons:

* Can be slower than `Map.get()` for large datasets since it needs to iterate through the entire array
* Not optimized for map lookups, unlike `Map.get()`

**Map.get():**

Pros:

* Optimized for map lookups, making it faster for searching large datasets
* More efficient when dealing with a large number of unique keys

Cons:

* Less intuitive for searching arrays (unless you use a specific approach like using `Array.from()` to convert the array to a map)
* Only finds the value associated with a single key; if no matching key is found, it returns undefined.

**Other considerations:**

* When using `Array.find()`, it's essential to handle cases where no matching element is found. In contrast, `Map.get()` will return `undefined` by default.
* When working with large datasets, the performance difference between these two methods can be significant.

**Library and purpose (if applicable):**

In this benchmark, we're using a JavaScript library or framework that supports both array and map data structures. There is no specific library mentioned in the provided code snippet.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing the performance of two standard methods.

**Alternatives:**

If you need to compare the performance of other methods, consider the following alternatives:

* For arrays:
	+ `Array.prototype.some()`: Similar to `Array.find()` but returns a boolean indicating whether any element matches the condition.
	+ `Array.prototype.forEach()`: Iterates through the array and executes the callback function for each element.
* For maps:
	+ `Map.prototype.keys()`: Returns an iterator over the keys of the map. You can then use a loop or another method like `Array.from()` to convert it to an array.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics compared to `Array.find()` and `Map.get()`.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 123 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.find()	5570.5 Ops/sec
Map.get()	516114848.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Map.get() vs Array.find() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.find() vs Map.get()

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.find()

Map.get()

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):