Benchmark: add vs object - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

set.add

const set = new Set()
for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
  set.add(i)
}

AخA
 
const set = new Set()for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {  set.add(i)}

object add

const set = {}
for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
  set[i] = 1
}

 
const set = {}for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {  set[i] = 1}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
set.add
object add

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/16.3 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 16 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
set.add	61939.2 Ops/sec
object add	376499.8 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

Let's break down the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

Benchmark Definition

The benchmark definition is represented by two JSON objects, which describe the individual test cases. In this case, we have only two test cases:

set.add: This test case creates a new Set object and adds 1000 elements to it using the add() method.
object add: This test case creates an empty object and assigns 1000 values to its keys using bracket notation ([i] = 1).

Options Compared

The benchmark compares two approaches:

Using a Set object (set.add)
Using an object with array-like behavior (object add)

Pros and Cons of Each Approach

Set Object (set.add)
- Pros:
  - Fast lookup and insertion times (average O(1) time complexity)
  - Memory-efficient
  - Can handle duplicate values
- Cons:
  - May require additional memory for the underlying data structure
  - Some older browsers may not support Sets natively
Object with Array-like Behavior (object add)
- Pros:
  - Wide browser support (no native Set support needed)
  - Easy to implement and understand
- Cons:
  - Slower lookup and insertion times (average O(n) time complexity due to array indexing)
  - Less memory-efficient than using a Set object

Library Usage

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, note that some older browsers may have issues with Sets natively.

Special JS Features or Syntax

The benchmark uses JavaScript's array-like syntax ([i] = 1) to simulate an object with array-like behavior. This syntax is not exclusive to modern JavaScript and has been supported for a long time, but it's worth noting that more concise alternatives like set[i] = 1 could also be used.

Other Alternatives

If you're looking for alternative approaches, consider the following:

Using a Map object instead of an object with array-like behavior
Implementing a custom data structure (e.g., a linked list) for fast lookup and insertion times

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as widely supported or well-suited to your specific use case.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is represented by two JSON objects, which describe the individual test cases. In this case, we have only two test cases:

1. `set.add`: This test case creates a new Set object and adds 1000 elements to it using the `add()` method.
2. `object add`: This test case creates an empty object and assigns 1000 values to its keys using bracket notation (`[i] = 1`).

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. Using a Set object (`set.add`)
2. Using an object with array-like behavior (`object add`)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Set Object (`set.add`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Fast lookup and insertion times (average O(1) time complexity)
		+ Memory-efficient
		+ Can handle duplicate values
	* Cons:
		+ May require additional memory for the underlying data structure
		+ Some older browsers may not support Sets natively
2. **Object with Array-like Behavior (`object add`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Wide browser support (no native Set support needed)
		+ Easy to implement and understand
	* Cons:
		+ Slower lookup and insertion times (average O(n) time complexity due to array indexing)
		+ Less memory-efficient than using a Set object

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, note that some older browsers may have issues with Sets natively.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The benchmark uses JavaScript's array-like syntax (`[i] = 1`) to simulate an object with array-like behavior. This syntax is not exclusive to modern JavaScript and has been supported for a long time, but it's worth noting that more concise alternatives like `set[i] = 1` could also be used.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches, consider the following:

* Using a Map object instead of an object with array-like behavior
* Implementing a custom data structure (e.g., a linked list) for fast lookup and insertion times

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as widely supported or well-suited to your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

add vs object (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: set.add vs object add

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result