5

Is it possible to find or add an element in one step in a Javascript Map?

I would like to do the following in one step (to avoid looking twice for the right place of the key):

// get the value if the key exists, set a default value otherwise
let aValue = aMap.get(aKey)
if(aValue == null) {
    aMap.set(aKey, aDefaultValue)
}

Instead I would like to search for the key only once.

In c++, one can use std::map::insert() or std::map::lower_bound()

In javascript the code could look like this:

let iterator = aMap.getPosition(aKey)
let aValue = aMap.getValue(iterator)
if(aValue == null)
{
    aMap.setWithHint(aKey, aValue, iterator)
}

or

let aValue = aMap.getOrSet(aKey, aDefaultValue)

I suppose that it is not possible, but I want to make sure I am correct. Also I am interested in knowing why it is not possible while it is an important feature.

Community
  • 1
  • 1
arthur.sw
  • 11,052
  • 9
  • 47
  • 104
  • Do I understand you correctly that you are concerned about `aKey` having to be looked up twice in your code example? – nils May 10 '16 at 10:19
  • Yes, this is the problem. – arthur.sw May 10 '16 at 12:36
  • 1
    In general, you don't have to worry about these kind of micro-optimizations in JavaScript. Modern JavaScript engines do a pretty good job at handling those. Also, as far as I know, there is no way to prevent this using maps. – nils May 10 '16 at 12:38

2 Answers2

3

The lookup has to happen anyway, it doesn't matter much if you avoid it, at least until the engines are optimized much more.

But Map.has is a nicer solution and should be a bit faster than Map.get(). For example:

myMap.has(myKey) ? true : myMap.set(myKey, myValue)

Performance should be irrelevant on this level unless you're google-scale. But if it's a serious bottleneck, an Array should still be faster than Map/Set for the forseeable future.

Matthias Winkelmann
  • 15,870
  • 7
  • 64
  • 76
0

I personally ended up changing my Map to a simple Object. That allows to write a reduce (that groups entries into a Map of Sets) like this:

.reduce((a, [k, v]) => (a[k] = a[k] || new Set()).add(v) ? a : a, {})

With Map it should have become

.reduce((a, [k, v]) => (a.has(k) ? a : a.set(k, new Set())).get(k).add(v) ? a : a, new Map())

That feels little too cumbersome for this purpose.

I agree that something like this would be ideal if ever supported:

.reduce((a, [k, v]) => a.getOrSet(k, new Set()).add(v) ? a : a, new Map())
Jamby
  • 1,886
  • 2
  • 20
  • 30