Why is searching for a value in an object by key slower than using 'for in' in js?How to efficiently count the number of keys/properties of an object in JavaScript?How to determine equality for two JavaScript objects?Checking if a key exists in a JavaScript object?Sort array of objects by string property valueHow can I add a key/value pair to a JavaScript object?Optimum way to compare strings in JavaScript?How do I remove a key from a JavaScript object?Check if a value is an object in JavaScriptWhy is bind slower than a closure?Why is <= slower than < using this code snippet in V8?

Why do Radio Buttons not fill the entire outer circle?

El Dorado Word Puzzle II: Videogame Edition

How to test the sharpness of a knife?

What (the heck) is a Super Worm Equinox Moon?

Do I have to know the General Relativity theory to understand the concept of inertial frame?

How to preserve electronics (computers, iPads and phones) for hundreds of years

What is the meaning of "You've never met a graph you didn't like?"

Is there a distance limit for minecart tracks?

"Oh no!" in Latin

How do you justify more code being written by following clean code practices?

Limit max CPU usage SQL SERVER with WSRM

How do I fix the group tension caused by my character stealing and possibly killing without provocation?

How to make a list of partial sums using forEach

How do I prevent inappropriate ads from appearing in my game?

Alignment of six matrices

Can I say "fingers" when referring to toes?

Why does a 97 / 92 key piano exist by Bösendorfer?

Given this phrasing in the lease, when should I pay my rent?

Why does the Persian emissary display a string of crowned skulls?

Typing CO_2 easily

What does "tick" mean in this sentence?

Check if object is null and return null

Sound waves in different octaves

When and why was runway 07/25 at Kai Tak removed?



Why is searching for a value in an object by key slower than using 'for in' in js?


How to efficiently count the number of keys/properties of an object in JavaScript?How to determine equality for two JavaScript objects?Checking if a key exists in a JavaScript object?Sort array of objects by string property valueHow can I add a key/value pair to a JavaScript object?Optimum way to compare strings in JavaScript?How do I remove a key from a JavaScript object?Check if a value is an object in JavaScriptWhy is bind slower than a closure?Why is <= slower than < using this code snippet in V8?













25















Why is it slower to search for a value in an object by key than using for in in JavaScript?



Like this code:






const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;

console.time('1');
let n = a['e'].txt;
console.log(n, '<<n')
console.timeEnd('1');

console.time('2');
for (const key in a)
if (a[key].txt == 5)
const m = a[key];
console.log(m, '<<m')
break;


console.timeEnd('2');





The result is




5 '<<by key'
1: 2.329ms
txt: 5 '<<for in '
2: 0.447ms


Isn't this weird?










share|improve this question
























  • Doing accurate timing tests in JavaScript can be tricky. You probably want to do bigger runs to make sure there's actually a real difference.

    – Steve Bennett
    Mar 14 at 7:49






  • 8





    The benchmarking method is flawed.

    – Salman A
    Mar 14 at 9:01















25















Why is it slower to search for a value in an object by key than using for in in JavaScript?



Like this code:






const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;

console.time('1');
let n = a['e'].txt;
console.log(n, '<<n')
console.timeEnd('1');

console.time('2');
for (const key in a)
if (a[key].txt == 5)
const m = a[key];
console.log(m, '<<m')
break;


console.timeEnd('2');





The result is




5 '<<by key'
1: 2.329ms
txt: 5 '<<for in '
2: 0.447ms


Isn't this weird?










share|improve this question
























  • Doing accurate timing tests in JavaScript can be tricky. You probably want to do bigger runs to make sure there's actually a real difference.

    – Steve Bennett
    Mar 14 at 7:49






  • 8





    The benchmarking method is flawed.

    – Salman A
    Mar 14 at 9:01













25












25








25


3






Why is it slower to search for a value in an object by key than using for in in JavaScript?



Like this code:






const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;

console.time('1');
let n = a['e'].txt;
console.log(n, '<<n')
console.timeEnd('1');

console.time('2');
for (const key in a)
if (a[key].txt == 5)
const m = a[key];
console.log(m, '<<m')
break;


console.timeEnd('2');





The result is




5 '<<by key'
1: 2.329ms
txt: 5 '<<for in '
2: 0.447ms


Isn't this weird?










share|improve this question
















Why is it slower to search for a value in an object by key than using for in in JavaScript?



Like this code:






const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;

console.time('1');
let n = a['e'].txt;
console.log(n, '<<n')
console.timeEnd('1');

console.time('2');
for (const key in a)
if (a[key].txt == 5)
const m = a[key];
console.log(m, '<<m')
break;


console.timeEnd('2');





The result is




5 '<<by key'
1: 2.329ms
txt: 5 '<<for in '
2: 0.447ms


Isn't this weird?






const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;

console.time('1');
let n = a['e'].txt;
console.log(n, '<<n')
console.timeEnd('1');

console.time('2');
for (const key in a)
if (a[key].txt == 5)
const m = a[key];
console.log(m, '<<m')
break;


console.timeEnd('2');





const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;

console.time('1');
let n = a['e'].txt;
console.log(n, '<<n')
console.timeEnd('1');

console.time('2');
for (const key in a)
if (a[key].txt == 5)
const m = a[key];
console.log(m, '<<m')
break;


console.timeEnd('2');






javascript node.js






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 14 at 10:47









dandan78

10.1k95471




10.1k95471










asked Mar 14 at 7:45









Johanna FengJohanna Feng

15017




15017












  • Doing accurate timing tests in JavaScript can be tricky. You probably want to do bigger runs to make sure there's actually a real difference.

    – Steve Bennett
    Mar 14 at 7:49






  • 8





    The benchmarking method is flawed.

    – Salman A
    Mar 14 at 9:01

















  • Doing accurate timing tests in JavaScript can be tricky. You probably want to do bigger runs to make sure there's actually a real difference.

    – Steve Bennett
    Mar 14 at 7:49






  • 8





    The benchmarking method is flawed.

    – Salman A
    Mar 14 at 9:01
















Doing accurate timing tests in JavaScript can be tricky. You probably want to do bigger runs to make sure there's actually a real difference.

– Steve Bennett
Mar 14 at 7:49





Doing accurate timing tests in JavaScript can be tricky. You probably want to do bigger runs to make sure there's actually a real difference.

– Steve Bennett
Mar 14 at 7:49




8




8





The benchmarking method is flawed.

– Salman A
Mar 14 at 9:01





The benchmarking method is flawed.

– Salman A
Mar 14 at 9:01












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















40














This is because of how the JIT compiler works.



When you start a JS script with Node, the V8 starts interpreting it, while compiling it into native machine code.



Running it in the Chrome Devtools console, I get this output :



5 "<<n"
0.167724609375ms
txt: 5 "<<m"
2: 0.262939453125ms


NodeJS output :



5 '<<n'
1: 18.684ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
2: 3.713ms


But when inverting the 2 variations :



const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;


console.time('2');
for (const key in a)
if (a[key].txt = 5)
const m = a[key];
console.log(m, '<<m')
break;



console.timeEnd('2');
console.time('1');
let n = a['e'].txt;
console.log(n, '<<n')
console.timeEnd('1');


Output :



 txt: 5 '<<m'
2: 22.017ms
5 '<<n'
1: 0.245ms


As you can see, the version that is executed first takes much more time than the second.



However, if you average it, you can see that executing the key access is much faster than the for in loop.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    And it's really nice to see if you put both variants in separate files and run them.

    – floriangosse
    Mar 14 at 7:51






  • 1





    Are you sure this is a problem with JIT? My guess would have been initialisation of the console.

    – Bergi
    Mar 14 at 13:08






  • 2





    console already exists, it's native code, it doesn't have to be initialized. The V8 compiles your code Just-In-Time, so it's interpreted before the compiling is done, hence the "slow" start

    – Seblor
    Mar 14 at 13:13



















9














You have an error in your program



if (a[key].txt = 5)


You are not checking if the txt property is equal to 5. You are setting the property to 5 which means you are finished after the first execution of the loop regardless.






share|improve this answer























  • you are right,I think I miss it when I copy ...

    – Johanna Feng
    Mar 14 at 9:52


















2














In JavaScript you can add or remove properties to objects dynamically. HashMaps are most memory efficient and fast data structures to access the properties. But dynamic nature of JavaScript makes it more difficult and slower. To fix this problem Nodejs V8 Engine internally uses JavaScript hidden classes and inline caching. Both the topics are quite vast to explain in this answer. So please find the blog link here and following is the awesome explanation of Nodejs v8 engine performance video.



In one iteration you can not determine the performance of two algorithms in almost 99% cases. So I have just modified your code and iterated it for 11 times (which is also not sufficient) for the demo purpose. And you can see drastic change in the output.



for (let i = 0; i <= 10; i++) 
const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;

console.time('Hash map access');
let n = a['e'].txt;
console.log(n, '<<n')
console.timeEnd('Hash map access');

console.time('For in loop');
for (const key in a)
if (a[key].txt == 5)
const m = a[key];
console.log(m, '<<m')
break;


console.timeEnd('For in loop');



Following is the out-put.



5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 8.580ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 4.301ms
5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 0.177ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 0.377ms
5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 0.170ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 0.196ms
5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 0.162ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 0.186ms
5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 0.483ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 0.465ms
5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 0.435ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 0.503ms
5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 0.500ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 0.471ms
5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 0.528ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 0.487ms
5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 0.492ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 0.494ms
5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 1.033ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 0.726ms
5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 0.484ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 0.649ms


If you observe the output there is drastic change in hash-map access, first it was 8.580ms in second time it was 0.177ms. You can find that after first time hash-map is almost faster than "for in loop". (Sometimes it's not as my system is under a lot of pressure while runnig the code :) )



Also I reversed the order, I put "For in Loop" first and then object [hashmap] following is the result.



 txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 16.390ms
5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 0.220ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 0.266ms
5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 0.186ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 0.277ms
5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 0.367ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 0.328ms
5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 0.249ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 0.947ms
5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 4.013ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 0.799ms
5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 0.532ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 0.565ms
5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 0.479ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 0.644ms
5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 0.609ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 0.624ms
5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 0.472ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 0.509ms
5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 0.458ms
txt: 5 '<<m'
For in loop: 0.568ms
5 '<<n'
Hash map access: 0.476ms


We can see first for-in loop has taken 16.39ms while the second only 0.266ms. As mentioned in above answer instantiation takes a lot of time, we can easily validate by seeing these numbers.



Conclusion is while writing the code in JavaScript for Nodejs v8 engine, if we don't add/remove properties on objects it will be more fast and efficient. Also code instantiation takes a lot of time while running the first time.






share|improve this answer
































    2














    As you can see here, testing with JS can be really a mess.






    const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;

    let test = function(x)
    console.log("Test "+x+" times")
    console.time('1');
    for(let i=0;i<x;i++)
    let n = a['e'].txt;


    console.timeEnd('1');
    console.time('2');

    for(let i=0;i<x;i++)
    for (const key in a)
    if (a[key].txt == 5)
    const m = a[key];
    break;



    console.timeEnd('2');


    test(1)
    test(100)
    test(100000)
    test(100000)
    test(100000)
    test(10000000)








    share|improve this answer






















      Your Answer






      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
      StackExchange.snippets.init();
      );
      );
      , "code-snippets");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "1"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55157295%2fwhy-is-searching-for-a-value-in-an-object-by-key-slower-than-using-for-in-in-j%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      40














      This is because of how the JIT compiler works.



      When you start a JS script with Node, the V8 starts interpreting it, while compiling it into native machine code.



      Running it in the Chrome Devtools console, I get this output :



      5 "<<n"
      0.167724609375ms
      txt: 5 "<<m"
      2: 0.262939453125ms


      NodeJS output :



      5 '<<n'
      1: 18.684ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      2: 3.713ms


      But when inverting the 2 variations :



      const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;


      console.time('2');
      for (const key in a)
      if (a[key].txt = 5)
      const m = a[key];
      console.log(m, '<<m')
      break;



      console.timeEnd('2');
      console.time('1');
      let n = a['e'].txt;
      console.log(n, '<<n')
      console.timeEnd('1');


      Output :



       txt: 5 '<<m'
      2: 22.017ms
      5 '<<n'
      1: 0.245ms


      As you can see, the version that is executed first takes much more time than the second.



      However, if you average it, you can see that executing the key access is much faster than the for in loop.






      share|improve this answer




















      • 1





        And it's really nice to see if you put both variants in separate files and run them.

        – floriangosse
        Mar 14 at 7:51






      • 1





        Are you sure this is a problem with JIT? My guess would have been initialisation of the console.

        – Bergi
        Mar 14 at 13:08






      • 2





        console already exists, it's native code, it doesn't have to be initialized. The V8 compiles your code Just-In-Time, so it's interpreted before the compiling is done, hence the "slow" start

        – Seblor
        Mar 14 at 13:13
















      40














      This is because of how the JIT compiler works.



      When you start a JS script with Node, the V8 starts interpreting it, while compiling it into native machine code.



      Running it in the Chrome Devtools console, I get this output :



      5 "<<n"
      0.167724609375ms
      txt: 5 "<<m"
      2: 0.262939453125ms


      NodeJS output :



      5 '<<n'
      1: 18.684ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      2: 3.713ms


      But when inverting the 2 variations :



      const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;


      console.time('2');
      for (const key in a)
      if (a[key].txt = 5)
      const m = a[key];
      console.log(m, '<<m')
      break;



      console.timeEnd('2');
      console.time('1');
      let n = a['e'].txt;
      console.log(n, '<<n')
      console.timeEnd('1');


      Output :



       txt: 5 '<<m'
      2: 22.017ms
      5 '<<n'
      1: 0.245ms


      As you can see, the version that is executed first takes much more time than the second.



      However, if you average it, you can see that executing the key access is much faster than the for in loop.






      share|improve this answer




















      • 1





        And it's really nice to see if you put both variants in separate files and run them.

        – floriangosse
        Mar 14 at 7:51






      • 1





        Are you sure this is a problem with JIT? My guess would have been initialisation of the console.

        – Bergi
        Mar 14 at 13:08






      • 2





        console already exists, it's native code, it doesn't have to be initialized. The V8 compiles your code Just-In-Time, so it's interpreted before the compiling is done, hence the "slow" start

        – Seblor
        Mar 14 at 13:13














      40












      40








      40







      This is because of how the JIT compiler works.



      When you start a JS script with Node, the V8 starts interpreting it, while compiling it into native machine code.



      Running it in the Chrome Devtools console, I get this output :



      5 "<<n"
      0.167724609375ms
      txt: 5 "<<m"
      2: 0.262939453125ms


      NodeJS output :



      5 '<<n'
      1: 18.684ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      2: 3.713ms


      But when inverting the 2 variations :



      const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;


      console.time('2');
      for (const key in a)
      if (a[key].txt = 5)
      const m = a[key];
      console.log(m, '<<m')
      break;



      console.timeEnd('2');
      console.time('1');
      let n = a['e'].txt;
      console.log(n, '<<n')
      console.timeEnd('1');


      Output :



       txt: 5 '<<m'
      2: 22.017ms
      5 '<<n'
      1: 0.245ms


      As you can see, the version that is executed first takes much more time than the second.



      However, if you average it, you can see that executing the key access is much faster than the for in loop.






      share|improve this answer















      This is because of how the JIT compiler works.



      When you start a JS script with Node, the V8 starts interpreting it, while compiling it into native machine code.



      Running it in the Chrome Devtools console, I get this output :



      5 "<<n"
      0.167724609375ms
      txt: 5 "<<m"
      2: 0.262939453125ms


      NodeJS output :



      5 '<<n'
      1: 18.684ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      2: 3.713ms


      But when inverting the 2 variations :



      const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;


      console.time('2');
      for (const key in a)
      if (a[key].txt = 5)
      const m = a[key];
      console.log(m, '<<m')
      break;



      console.timeEnd('2');
      console.time('1');
      let n = a['e'].txt;
      console.log(n, '<<n')
      console.timeEnd('1');


      Output :



       txt: 5 '<<m'
      2: 22.017ms
      5 '<<n'
      1: 0.245ms


      As you can see, the version that is executed first takes much more time than the second.



      However, if you average it, you can see that executing the key access is much faster than the for in loop.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Mar 14 at 7:59

























      answered Mar 14 at 7:50









      SeblorSeblor

      2,9311328




      2,9311328







      • 1





        And it's really nice to see if you put both variants in separate files and run them.

        – floriangosse
        Mar 14 at 7:51






      • 1





        Are you sure this is a problem with JIT? My guess would have been initialisation of the console.

        – Bergi
        Mar 14 at 13:08






      • 2





        console already exists, it's native code, it doesn't have to be initialized. The V8 compiles your code Just-In-Time, so it's interpreted before the compiling is done, hence the "slow" start

        – Seblor
        Mar 14 at 13:13













      • 1





        And it's really nice to see if you put both variants in separate files and run them.

        – floriangosse
        Mar 14 at 7:51






      • 1





        Are you sure this is a problem with JIT? My guess would have been initialisation of the console.

        – Bergi
        Mar 14 at 13:08






      • 2





        console already exists, it's native code, it doesn't have to be initialized. The V8 compiles your code Just-In-Time, so it's interpreted before the compiling is done, hence the "slow" start

        – Seblor
        Mar 14 at 13:13








      1




      1





      And it's really nice to see if you put both variants in separate files and run them.

      – floriangosse
      Mar 14 at 7:51





      And it's really nice to see if you put both variants in separate files and run them.

      – floriangosse
      Mar 14 at 7:51




      1




      1





      Are you sure this is a problem with JIT? My guess would have been initialisation of the console.

      – Bergi
      Mar 14 at 13:08





      Are you sure this is a problem with JIT? My guess would have been initialisation of the console.

      – Bergi
      Mar 14 at 13:08




      2




      2





      console already exists, it's native code, it doesn't have to be initialized. The V8 compiles your code Just-In-Time, so it's interpreted before the compiling is done, hence the "slow" start

      – Seblor
      Mar 14 at 13:13






      console already exists, it's native code, it doesn't have to be initialized. The V8 compiles your code Just-In-Time, so it's interpreted before the compiling is done, hence the "slow" start

      – Seblor
      Mar 14 at 13:13














      9














      You have an error in your program



      if (a[key].txt = 5)


      You are not checking if the txt property is equal to 5. You are setting the property to 5 which means you are finished after the first execution of the loop regardless.






      share|improve this answer























      • you are right,I think I miss it when I copy ...

        – Johanna Feng
        Mar 14 at 9:52















      9














      You have an error in your program



      if (a[key].txt = 5)


      You are not checking if the txt property is equal to 5. You are setting the property to 5 which means you are finished after the first execution of the loop regardless.






      share|improve this answer























      • you are right,I think I miss it when I copy ...

        – Johanna Feng
        Mar 14 at 9:52













      9












      9








      9







      You have an error in your program



      if (a[key].txt = 5)


      You are not checking if the txt property is equal to 5. You are setting the property to 5 which means you are finished after the first execution of the loop regardless.






      share|improve this answer













      You have an error in your program



      if (a[key].txt = 5)


      You are not checking if the txt property is equal to 5. You are setting the property to 5 which means you are finished after the first execution of the loop regardless.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Mar 14 at 9:50









      MasterCassimMasterCassim

      7,47631728




      7,47631728












      • you are right,I think I miss it when I copy ...

        – Johanna Feng
        Mar 14 at 9:52

















      • you are right,I think I miss it when I copy ...

        – Johanna Feng
        Mar 14 at 9:52
















      you are right,I think I miss it when I copy ...

      – Johanna Feng
      Mar 14 at 9:52





      you are right,I think I miss it when I copy ...

      – Johanna Feng
      Mar 14 at 9:52











      2














      In JavaScript you can add or remove properties to objects dynamically. HashMaps are most memory efficient and fast data structures to access the properties. But dynamic nature of JavaScript makes it more difficult and slower. To fix this problem Nodejs V8 Engine internally uses JavaScript hidden classes and inline caching. Both the topics are quite vast to explain in this answer. So please find the blog link here and following is the awesome explanation of Nodejs v8 engine performance video.



      In one iteration you can not determine the performance of two algorithms in almost 99% cases. So I have just modified your code and iterated it for 11 times (which is also not sufficient) for the demo purpose. And you can see drastic change in the output.



      for (let i = 0; i <= 10; i++) 
      const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;

      console.time('Hash map access');
      let n = a['e'].txt;
      console.log(n, '<<n')
      console.timeEnd('Hash map access');

      console.time('For in loop');
      for (const key in a)
      if (a[key].txt == 5)
      const m = a[key];
      console.log(m, '<<m')
      break;


      console.timeEnd('For in loop');



      Following is the out-put.



      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 8.580ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 4.301ms
      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 0.177ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 0.377ms
      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 0.170ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 0.196ms
      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 0.162ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 0.186ms
      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 0.483ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 0.465ms
      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 0.435ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 0.503ms
      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 0.500ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 0.471ms
      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 0.528ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 0.487ms
      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 0.492ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 0.494ms
      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 1.033ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 0.726ms
      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 0.484ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 0.649ms


      If you observe the output there is drastic change in hash-map access, first it was 8.580ms in second time it was 0.177ms. You can find that after first time hash-map is almost faster than "for in loop". (Sometimes it's not as my system is under a lot of pressure while runnig the code :) )



      Also I reversed the order, I put "For in Loop" first and then object [hashmap] following is the result.



       txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 16.390ms
      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 0.220ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 0.266ms
      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 0.186ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 0.277ms
      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 0.367ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 0.328ms
      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 0.249ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 0.947ms
      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 4.013ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 0.799ms
      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 0.532ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 0.565ms
      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 0.479ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 0.644ms
      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 0.609ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 0.624ms
      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 0.472ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 0.509ms
      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 0.458ms
      txt: 5 '<<m'
      For in loop: 0.568ms
      5 '<<n'
      Hash map access: 0.476ms


      We can see first for-in loop has taken 16.39ms while the second only 0.266ms. As mentioned in above answer instantiation takes a lot of time, we can easily validate by seeing these numbers.



      Conclusion is while writing the code in JavaScript for Nodejs v8 engine, if we don't add/remove properties on objects it will be more fast and efficient. Also code instantiation takes a lot of time while running the first time.






      share|improve this answer





























        2














        In JavaScript you can add or remove properties to objects dynamically. HashMaps are most memory efficient and fast data structures to access the properties. But dynamic nature of JavaScript makes it more difficult and slower. To fix this problem Nodejs V8 Engine internally uses JavaScript hidden classes and inline caching. Both the topics are quite vast to explain in this answer. So please find the blog link here and following is the awesome explanation of Nodejs v8 engine performance video.



        In one iteration you can not determine the performance of two algorithms in almost 99% cases. So I have just modified your code and iterated it for 11 times (which is also not sufficient) for the demo purpose. And you can see drastic change in the output.



        for (let i = 0; i <= 10; i++) 
        const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;

        console.time('Hash map access');
        let n = a['e'].txt;
        console.log(n, '<<n')
        console.timeEnd('Hash map access');

        console.time('For in loop');
        for (const key in a)
        if (a[key].txt == 5)
        const m = a[key];
        console.log(m, '<<m')
        break;


        console.timeEnd('For in loop');



        Following is the out-put.



        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 8.580ms
        txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 4.301ms
        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 0.177ms
        txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 0.377ms
        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 0.170ms
        txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 0.196ms
        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 0.162ms
        txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 0.186ms
        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 0.483ms
        txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 0.465ms
        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 0.435ms
        txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 0.503ms
        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 0.500ms
        txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 0.471ms
        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 0.528ms
        txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 0.487ms
        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 0.492ms
        txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 0.494ms
        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 1.033ms
        txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 0.726ms
        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 0.484ms
        txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 0.649ms


        If you observe the output there is drastic change in hash-map access, first it was 8.580ms in second time it was 0.177ms. You can find that after first time hash-map is almost faster than "for in loop". (Sometimes it's not as my system is under a lot of pressure while runnig the code :) )



        Also I reversed the order, I put "For in Loop" first and then object [hashmap] following is the result.



         txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 16.390ms
        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 0.220ms
        txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 0.266ms
        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 0.186ms
        txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 0.277ms
        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 0.367ms
        txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 0.328ms
        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 0.249ms
        txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 0.947ms
        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 4.013ms
        txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 0.799ms
        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 0.532ms
        txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 0.565ms
        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 0.479ms
        txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 0.644ms
        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 0.609ms
        txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 0.624ms
        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 0.472ms
        txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 0.509ms
        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 0.458ms
        txt: 5 '<<m'
        For in loop: 0.568ms
        5 '<<n'
        Hash map access: 0.476ms


        We can see first for-in loop has taken 16.39ms while the second only 0.266ms. As mentioned in above answer instantiation takes a lot of time, we can easily validate by seeing these numbers.



        Conclusion is while writing the code in JavaScript for Nodejs v8 engine, if we don't add/remove properties on objects it will be more fast and efficient. Also code instantiation takes a lot of time while running the first time.






        share|improve this answer



























          2












          2








          2







          In JavaScript you can add or remove properties to objects dynamically. HashMaps are most memory efficient and fast data structures to access the properties. But dynamic nature of JavaScript makes it more difficult and slower. To fix this problem Nodejs V8 Engine internally uses JavaScript hidden classes and inline caching. Both the topics are quite vast to explain in this answer. So please find the blog link here and following is the awesome explanation of Nodejs v8 engine performance video.



          In one iteration you can not determine the performance of two algorithms in almost 99% cases. So I have just modified your code and iterated it for 11 times (which is also not sufficient) for the demo purpose. And you can see drastic change in the output.



          for (let i = 0; i <= 10; i++) 
          const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;

          console.time('Hash map access');
          let n = a['e'].txt;
          console.log(n, '<<n')
          console.timeEnd('Hash map access');

          console.time('For in loop');
          for (const key in a)
          if (a[key].txt == 5)
          const m = a[key];
          console.log(m, '<<m')
          break;


          console.timeEnd('For in loop');



          Following is the out-put.



          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 8.580ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 4.301ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.177ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.377ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.170ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.196ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.162ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.186ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.483ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.465ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.435ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.503ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.500ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.471ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.528ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.487ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.492ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.494ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 1.033ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.726ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.484ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.649ms


          If you observe the output there is drastic change in hash-map access, first it was 8.580ms in second time it was 0.177ms. You can find that after first time hash-map is almost faster than "for in loop". (Sometimes it's not as my system is under a lot of pressure while runnig the code :) )



          Also I reversed the order, I put "For in Loop" first and then object [hashmap] following is the result.



           txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 16.390ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.220ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.266ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.186ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.277ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.367ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.328ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.249ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.947ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 4.013ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.799ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.532ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.565ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.479ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.644ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.609ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.624ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.472ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.509ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.458ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.568ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.476ms


          We can see first for-in loop has taken 16.39ms while the second only 0.266ms. As mentioned in above answer instantiation takes a lot of time, we can easily validate by seeing these numbers.



          Conclusion is while writing the code in JavaScript for Nodejs v8 engine, if we don't add/remove properties on objects it will be more fast and efficient. Also code instantiation takes a lot of time while running the first time.






          share|improve this answer















          In JavaScript you can add or remove properties to objects dynamically. HashMaps are most memory efficient and fast data structures to access the properties. But dynamic nature of JavaScript makes it more difficult and slower. To fix this problem Nodejs V8 Engine internally uses JavaScript hidden classes and inline caching. Both the topics are quite vast to explain in this answer. So please find the blog link here and following is the awesome explanation of Nodejs v8 engine performance video.



          In one iteration you can not determine the performance of two algorithms in almost 99% cases. So I have just modified your code and iterated it for 11 times (which is also not sufficient) for the demo purpose. And you can see drastic change in the output.



          for (let i = 0; i <= 10; i++) 
          const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;

          console.time('Hash map access');
          let n = a['e'].txt;
          console.log(n, '<<n')
          console.timeEnd('Hash map access');

          console.time('For in loop');
          for (const key in a)
          if (a[key].txt == 5)
          const m = a[key];
          console.log(m, '<<m')
          break;


          console.timeEnd('For in loop');



          Following is the out-put.



          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 8.580ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 4.301ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.177ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.377ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.170ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.196ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.162ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.186ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.483ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.465ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.435ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.503ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.500ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.471ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.528ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.487ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.492ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.494ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 1.033ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.726ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.484ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.649ms


          If you observe the output there is drastic change in hash-map access, first it was 8.580ms in second time it was 0.177ms. You can find that after first time hash-map is almost faster than "for in loop". (Sometimes it's not as my system is under a lot of pressure while runnig the code :) )



          Also I reversed the order, I put "For in Loop" first and then object [hashmap] following is the result.



           txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 16.390ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.220ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.266ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.186ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.277ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.367ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.328ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.249ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.947ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 4.013ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.799ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.532ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.565ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.479ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.644ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.609ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.624ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.472ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.509ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.458ms
          txt: 5 '<<m'
          For in loop: 0.568ms
          5 '<<n'
          Hash map access: 0.476ms


          We can see first for-in loop has taken 16.39ms while the second only 0.266ms. As mentioned in above answer instantiation takes a lot of time, we can easily validate by seeing these numbers.



          Conclusion is while writing the code in JavaScript for Nodejs v8 engine, if we don't add/remove properties on objects it will be more fast and efficient. Also code instantiation takes a lot of time while running the first time.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Mar 15 at 16:23

























          answered Mar 15 at 11:25









          Rahul RautRahul Raut

          298110




          298110





















              2














              As you can see here, testing with JS can be really a mess.






              const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;

              let test = function(x)
              console.log("Test "+x+" times")
              console.time('1');
              for(let i=0;i<x;i++)
              let n = a['e'].txt;


              console.timeEnd('1');
              console.time('2');

              for(let i=0;i<x;i++)
              for (const key in a)
              if (a[key].txt == 5)
              const m = a[key];
              break;



              console.timeEnd('2');


              test(1)
              test(100)
              test(100000)
              test(100000)
              test(100000)
              test(10000000)








              share|improve this answer



























                2














                As you can see here, testing with JS can be really a mess.






                const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;

                let test = function(x)
                console.log("Test "+x+" times")
                console.time('1');
                for(let i=0;i<x;i++)
                let n = a['e'].txt;


                console.timeEnd('1');
                console.time('2');

                for(let i=0;i<x;i++)
                for (const key in a)
                if (a[key].txt == 5)
                const m = a[key];
                break;



                console.timeEnd('2');


                test(1)
                test(100)
                test(100000)
                test(100000)
                test(100000)
                test(10000000)








                share|improve this answer

























                  2












                  2








                  2







                  As you can see here, testing with JS can be really a mess.






                  const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;

                  let test = function(x)
                  console.log("Test "+x+" times")
                  console.time('1');
                  for(let i=0;i<x;i++)
                  let n = a['e'].txt;


                  console.timeEnd('1');
                  console.time('2');

                  for(let i=0;i<x;i++)
                  for (const key in a)
                  if (a[key].txt == 5)
                  const m = a[key];
                  break;



                  console.timeEnd('2');


                  test(1)
                  test(100)
                  test(100000)
                  test(100000)
                  test(100000)
                  test(10000000)








                  share|improve this answer













                  As you can see here, testing with JS can be really a mess.






                  const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;

                  let test = function(x)
                  console.log("Test "+x+" times")
                  console.time('1');
                  for(let i=0;i<x;i++)
                  let n = a['e'].txt;


                  console.timeEnd('1');
                  console.time('2');

                  for(let i=0;i<x;i++)
                  for (const key in a)
                  if (a[key].txt == 5)
                  const m = a[key];
                  break;



                  console.timeEnd('2');


                  test(1)
                  test(100)
                  test(100000)
                  test(100000)
                  test(100000)
                  test(10000000)








                  const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;

                  let test = function(x)
                  console.log("Test "+x+" times")
                  console.time('1');
                  for(let i=0;i<x;i++)
                  let n = a['e'].txt;


                  console.timeEnd('1');
                  console.time('2');

                  for(let i=0;i<x;i++)
                  for (const key in a)
                  if (a[key].txt == 5)
                  const m = a[key];
                  break;



                  console.timeEnd('2');


                  test(1)
                  test(100)
                  test(100000)
                  test(100000)
                  test(100000)
                  test(10000000)





                  const a = a: txt: 1 , b: txt: 2 , c: txt: 3 , d: txt: 4 , e: txt: 5 , f: txt: 6 ;

                  let test = function(x)
                  console.log("Test "+x+" times")
                  console.time('1');
                  for(let i=0;i<x;i++)
                  let n = a['e'].txt;


                  console.timeEnd('1');
                  console.time('2');

                  for(let i=0;i<x;i++)
                  for (const key in a)
                  if (a[key].txt == 5)
                  const m = a[key];
                  break;



                  console.timeEnd('2');


                  test(1)
                  test(100)
                  test(100000)
                  test(100000)
                  test(100000)
                  test(10000000)






                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Mar 15 at 16:50









                  ArthurArthur

                  2,88531837




                  2,88531837



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55157295%2fwhy-is-searching-for-a-value-in-an-object-by-key-slower-than-using-for-in-in-j%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Lowndes Grove History Architecture References Navigation menu32°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661132°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661178002500"National Register Information System"Historic houses of South Carolina"Lowndes Grove""+32° 48' 6.00", −79° 57' 58.00""Lowndes Grove, Charleston County (260 St. Margaret St., Charleston)""Lowndes Grove"The Charleston ExpositionIt Happened in South Carolina"Lowndes Grove (House), Saint Margaret Street & Sixth Avenue, Charleston, Charleston County, SC(Photographs)"Plantations of the Carolina Low Countrye

                      random experiment with two different functions on unit interval Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Random variable and probability space notionsRandom Walk with EdgesFinding functions where the increase over a random interval is Poisson distributedNumber of days until dayCan an observed event in fact be of zero probability?Unit random processmodels of coins and uniform distributionHow to get the number of successes given $n$ trials , probability $P$ and a random variable $X$Absorbing Markov chain in a computer. Is “almost every” turned into always convergence in computer executions?Stopped random walk is not uniformly integrable

                      How should I support this large drywall patch? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?How do I cover large gaps in drywall?How do I keep drywall around a patch from crumbling?Can I glue a second layer of drywall?How to patch long strip on drywall?Large drywall patch: how to avoid bulging seams?Drywall Mesh Patch vs. Bulge? To remove or not to remove?How to fix this drywall job?Prep drywall before backsplashWhat's the best way to fix this horrible drywall patch job?Drywall patching using 3M Patch Plus Primer