Benchmark: Custom Benchmark 1234

Script Preparation code:

var data = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
	data.push([`field_${i}`, 'somve_value'])
}

Tests:

with map...
const map = new Map(); for (let i = 0; i < data.length; i++) { map.set(data[i], true); }
with object...
const map = {}; for (let i = 0; i < data.length; i++) { map[data[i]] = true; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
with map...
with object...

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring performance of JavaScript microbenchmarks can be a fascinating topic.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases for a benchmarking exercise, which compares the performance of creating and populating a Map object versus an Object in JavaScript. A Map is a data structure that stores key-value pairs, where each key is unique and maps to a specific value. In contrast, an Object is a collection of properties with values.

**Options being compared:**

There are two primary approaches being tested:

1. **Using the `Map` constructor**: This approach creates a new Map instance using the `new` keyword, followed by a for loop that sets each key-value pair in the map.
2. **Using an object literal**: This approach creates a new object literal (i.e., a new object without the `new` keyword) and uses the syntax `map[key] = value;` to set each key-value pair.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Using the `Map` constructor**:
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and expressive code.
		+ Better performance due to optimized implementation.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires knowledge of the Map object's existence and syntax.
2. **Using an object literal**:
	* Pros:
		+ Easier to understand for developers familiar with JavaScript objects.
		+ Less prone to errors, as it follows a more traditional object creation pattern.
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose code compared to the Map constructor approach.

**Other considerations:**

* The use of `const` keyword implies that the map/object is not intended to be reassigned or modified after initialization.
* The use of a for loop suggests a simple iteration over the data, rather than more complex logic.

**Library usage: None**

There are no external libraries being used in these test cases. However, it's worth noting that if other libraries were involved (e.g., `lodash` or `ramda`), their APIs and performance characteristics would be an additional factor to consider.

**Special JS features or syntax: None**

This benchmark does not rely on any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ECMAScript 2022 language support.

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/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
with map...	9613.1 Ops/sec
with object...	2413.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Custom Benchmark 1234 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: with map... vs with object...

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

with map...

with object...

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):