Benchmark: Map.get versus Array.find for 100 elements

Script Preparation code:

data = [...Array(100)].map((_, id) => ({ id, data: Math.random() }))
map = new Map(data.map(v => [v.id, v]))

Tests:

Array to Map and find
const res = map.get(50)
Array.find
const res = data.find(({ id }) => id === 50)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array to Map and find
Array.find

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 JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided JSON represents two benchmark definitions, each testing different approaches to retrieve data from an array or a Map object. We'll break down what's being tested and explore the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark 1: "Map.get versus Array.find for 100 elements"**

In this benchmark, we're comparing two methods:

1. `map.get()`: This method retrieves the value associated with a given key from a Map object.
2. `Array.find()` : This method returns the element in an array that satisfies the provided testing function.

**Pros and Cons:**

* `Map.get()`:
	+ Pros: Generally faster than `Array.find()` since it uses a hash table-based lookup, which is optimized for fast lookups.
	+ Cons: Requires creating a Map object beforehand, which might incur additional overhead. Also, the key must be present in the Map for this method to work.
* `Array.find()` :
	+ Pros: More flexible and easier to use, as it doesn't require creating an intermediate data structure (like a Map). It also works with arrays of arbitrary types.
	+ Cons: Generally slower than `Map.get()`, especially for large datasets, since it iterates through the array until finding a match.

**Other Considerations:**

* Performance difference is likely to be significant between these two methods, depending on the size and distribution of data. For smaller datasets or those with many duplicates, `Array.find()` might become competitive with `Map.get()`. However, as the dataset grows larger, `Map.get()` will generally outperform `Array.find()`.
* In terms of memory usage, both methods have similar overhead since they work with the same underlying data structure.

**Library:**

The library being used in this benchmark is JavaScript's built-in `Map` object and the `Array.prototype.find()` method. These are native parts of the language, making them accessible without requiring any external libraries or polyfills.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

There isn't a specific JavaScript feature or syntax that's being tested here, as both methods rely on standard language constructs.

**Other Alternatives:**

For similar benchmarks, MeasureThat.net also provides other alternatives and test cases, such as:

* Using `Array.prototype.findIndex()` instead of `Array.find()`
* Comparing performance with different data structures, like linked lists or trees
* Evaluating the impact of different data sizes on performance

These additional tests help provide a more comprehensive understanding of JavaScript's performance characteristics under various scenarios.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/112.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 112 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array to Map and find	1631770752.0 Ops/sec
Array.find	10726077.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Map.get versus Array.find for 100 elements (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array to Map and find vs Array.find

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array to Map and find

Array.find

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):