Benchmark: Map vs Object UUID Key/Value

Script Preparation code:

var uuid = crypto.randomUUID();
var i = 0, count = 500, a;
a = crypto.randomUUID();

Tests:

Map
var map = new Map(); map.set(uuid, a); for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { map.set(a, crypto.randomUUID()); a = map.get(a); }
Obj
var obj = {}; obj[uuid] = a; for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { obj[a] = crypto.randomUUID(); a = obj[a]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Map
Obj

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared options, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark tests the performance of two approaches to store and retrieve values: using a `Map` data structure in JavaScript versus an object literal (`{}`) with string keys. The test case uses the `crypto.randomUUID()` function to generate unique IDs for each value being stored and retrieved.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code generates two variables:

1. `uuid`: a random UUID (Universally Unique Identifier) using `crypto.randomUUID()`.
2. `a`: another random UUID using `crypto.randomUUID()`.

These variables are used as the key and value in the test cases, respectively.

**Html Preparation Code**

Since there is no HTML preparation code provided, we can assume that this benchmark is a pure JavaScript performance test, focusing solely on the script execution time.

**Benchmark Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **"Map"`**: This test case uses a `Map` data structure to store and retrieve values. The script sets an initial key-value pair with `uuid` as the key and `a` as the value, and then performs a loop where it sets additional key-value pairs with `a` as the key and another random UUID as the value. Finally, it retrieves the value associated with `a` using the `map.get()` method.

2. **"Obj"`**: This test case uses an object literal (`{}`) with string keys to store and retrieve values. Similar to the "Map" test case, it sets an initial key-value pair with `uuid` as the key and `a` as the value, and then performs a loop where it sets additional key-value pairs with `a` as the key and another random UUID as the value. Finally, it retrieves the value associated with `a` using the object literal syntax (`obj[a]`).

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Map**: Using a `Map` data structure to store and retrieve values.
2. **Obj**: Using an object literal with string keys to store and retrieve values.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Map:**

Pros:

* Fast lookup times, especially for large datasets.
* Can handle duplicate keys (in this case, the key `a` is used multiple times).
* Can be more memory-efficient than object literals with string keys.

Cons:

* May require additional imports or dependencies (e.g., for the `Map` constructor).

**Obj:**

Pros:

* Easy to implement and understand.
* Does not require additional imports or dependencies.
* Can be a good choice when working with smaller datasets or simple data structures.

Cons:

* Slower lookup times compared to `Map`, especially for large datasets.
* Key collision issues can occur if duplicate keys are used (in this case, the key `a` is used multiple times).

**Other Considerations**

1. **Memory usage**: The Map approach may be more memory-efficient than the object literal approach, especially when working with large datasets.
2. **Browser compatibility**: Both approaches should work in modern browsers. However, some older browsers might not support the `Map` constructor or other ECMAScript features used in this benchmark.
3. **Language features**: The use of `crypto.randomUUID()` and the `map.get()` method (in the "Map" test case) rely on JavaScript language features that are widely supported.

**Alternatives**

If you need to optimize performance, you may also consider using other data structures or libraries, such as:

1. **Array-based approaches**: Using arrays instead of Maps or objects can provide similar performance benefits.
2. **Third-party libraries**: Libraries like Lodash or Ramda offer optimized implementations for various data structure operations, including lookups and value retrieval.

Keep in mind that the best approach depends on your specific use case, data size, and requirements.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/110.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 110 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Map	1414.7 Ops/sec
Obj	1197.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Map vs Object UUID Key/Value (version: 0)

Lookup of map vs object

Comparing performance of: Map vs Obj

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Map

Obj

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):