Benchmark: Map sets vs gets

Script Preparation code:

var map = new Map([["mark", { id: 42, status: "online" }]])

Tests:

Map Set
map.set("mark", { id: 21, status: "online" })
Map Get
map.get("mark")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Map Set
Map Get

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/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Map Set	22564180.0 Ops/sec
Map Get	32790004.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests the performance difference between two approaches:

1. `map.set()`: This method sets the value of an existing key in the Map, or creates a new entry if the key doesn't exist.
2. `map.get()`: This method retrieves the value associated with a given key from the Map.

**Options compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of these two approaches:

* `map.set()` vs `map.get()`

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **`map.set()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be faster for inserting or updating data in a Map, as it involves less overhead than retrieving data.
		+ Can lead to more efficient caching and indexing, especially if the data is frequently updated.
	* Cons:
		+ May incur additional overhead due to the need to update the internal map structure.
		+ Can lead to slower performance when accessing existing data that hasn't been updated recently.
2. **`map.get()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Typically faster for retrieving existing data, as it involves less overhead than inserting or updating data.
		+ Is usually the more straightforward and idiomatic way to access Map data in JavaScript.
	* Cons:
		+ May incur additional overhead due to the need to search for the key in the map's internal structure.
		+ Can lead to slower performance when frequently inserting or updating data.

**Library usage**

The benchmark uses a standard JavaScript `Map` object, which is a built-in API provided by most modern browsers. The `Map` interface is part of the ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) specification and is widely supported across different browsers and platforms.

There are no external libraries or dependencies used in this benchmark beyond the standard JavaScript `Map` API.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. It relies on the standard JavaScript language and the built-in `Map` object to perform its tests.

**Other alternatives**

If you were looking for alternative approaches to test the performance of Map operations, some other options could include:

* Using an array or object instead of a Map
* Implementing your own custom data structure (e.g., using a hash table or a binary search tree)
* Using a different programming language or platform that provides similar data structures and APIs

However, it's worth noting that the standard JavaScript `Map` object is widely supported and well-suited for this type of benchmark, making it an excellent choice for measuring the performance of Map operations.

Related benchmarks:

Map sets vs gets (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Map Set vs Map Get

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Map Set

Map Get

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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