Benchmark: Set vs Map - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Set
var set = new Set(["one", "two", "three", "four", "five", "six", "seven", "eight", "nine", "ten"]);
Map
var set = new Map([["one", true], ["two", true], ["three", true], ["four", true], ["five", true], ["six", true], ["seven", true], ["eight", true], ["nine", true], ["ten", true]]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Set
Map

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/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Set	4355933.0 Ops/sec
Map	3430001.8 Ops/sec

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 definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, specifically comparing two data structures: Sets and Maps. A Set in JavaScript is an object that stores unique values (no duplicates), whereas a Map is an object that stores key-value pairs.

**Options Compared:**

In this benchmark, the following options are compared:

1. **Sets**: A Set of strings.
2. **Maps**: A Map where each key is a string and its value is always true.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

*   **Sets**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Fast lookups ( O(1) ) since Sets use a hash table internally.
        *   Efficient for adding or removing elements quickly.
    *   Cons:
        *   Cannot store values other than primitives (strings, numbers, etc.).
        *   Does not support key-value pairs or object-like behavior.

*   **Maps**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Supports key-value pairs and can store more complex data types (including objects).
        *   Allows for efficient lookups ( O(1) ), insertion, and deletion of elements.
    *   Cons:
        *   Slower than Sets due to the overhead of storing key-value pairs.

**Library Usage:**

Neither the Set nor Map implementations use any external libraries in this benchmark. However, they are native JavaScript data structures, which means they come built-in with the language.

**Special JS Features or Syntax:**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided code snippets.

**Other Considerations:**

When choosing between Sets and Maps, consider the specific requirements of your application:

*   If you need to store unique values or perform fast lookups, Sets might be a better choice.
*   If you require storing key-value pairs or working with more complex data types, Maps are likely a better fit.

**Alternative Approaches:**

Other alternatives for achieving similar functionality include using other JavaScript data structures like:

1.  **Arrays**: While not ideal for lookup-heavy operations, arrays can be used to store unique values.
2.  **Objects**: Can be used to store key-value pairs, but might incur additional overhead due to the overhead of storing and accessing properties.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide the same performance as Sets or Maps, depending on the specific use case.

By understanding the differences between Sets and Maps, developers can make informed decisions about which data structure best suits their needs.

Related benchmarks:

Set vs Map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Set vs Map

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Set

Map

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):