Benchmark: Blabladictlookup

Script Preparation code:

   var arr = {};
    for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
      arr["a_" + i] = i;
    }
  
    var arr2 = {};
    for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
      arr2["_" + i] = i;
    }

Tests:

dict
var b = arr["a_100"]
dict2
var b = arr2["_100"]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
dict
dict2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll explain the benchmark in detail.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net, which allows users to create and run tests for various JavaScript scenarios. The benchmark involves creating two arrays, `arr` and `arr2`, with 1000 elements each, and then accessing elements of these arrays using string indices.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is the code that runs before each test case:
```javascript
var arr = {}; // Create an empty object (JavaScript's equivalent of a dictionary)
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
    arr["a_" + i] = i; // Populate the array with key-value pairs
}

var arr2 = {}; // Create another empty object
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
    arr2["_" + i] = i; // Populate this array with key-value pairs
}
```
This code creates two arrays and populates them with 1000 elements each. The keys in these arrays are strings that will be used to access the elements.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **dict**: This test case accesses an element of `arr` using a string index: `var b = arr["a_100"]`.
2. **dict2**: This test case accesses an element of `arr2` using a string index: `var b = arr2["_100"]`.

**Library and Purpose**

Neither of the libraries used in this benchmark is explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON. However, based on the context, it can be inferred that the `Array.prototype[]` syntax is being used, which is part of the JavaScript standard library.

The purpose of these test cases is to measure the performance of accessing elements of arrays using string indices.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The code uses only standard JavaScript syntax and features.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

In terms of optimizing access to array elements, the two approaches used here are:

1. **Using a string index**: This approach involves accessing an element using its key as a string.
2. **Not using a string index**: This approach would involve accessing the element directly without using a string index.

**Pros and Cons:**

* Using a string index:
	+ Pros: Works for any array, regardless of its internal implementation.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of string lookup.
* Not using a string index (assuming direct access):
	+ Pros: Potentially faster since it avoids the string lookup overhead.
	+ Cons: May not work if the internal implementation of the array uses a different indexing mechanism.

**Other Alternatives**

Other alternatives for optimizing array access could include:

1. Using `Object.keys()` and iterating over the keys to find the desired element.
2. Using `Array.prototype.indexOf()` to find the index of the desired element, and then using that index to access it.
3. Optimizing the internal implementation of the array (if possible) to reduce lookup overhead.

However, these alternatives would likely have different performance characteristics and may not be as straightforward to implement or understand as the original approach.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.124 Safari/537.36 Edg/91.0.864.70

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
dict	8121862.0 Ops/sec
dict2	8292010.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Blabladictlookup (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: dict vs dict2

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

dict

dict2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):