Benchmarks
August 5, 2025 ยท View on GitHub
Analysis (TL;DR)
- In every scenario,
ChunkedQueue, introduced in this project, consumes the lowest amount of RAM - Performance-wise, in most scenarios, the implementations of @datastructures-js/queue and Mnemonist have the highest throughput of operations per second
- Surprisingly,
DynamicCyclicQueue, also introduced in this project, has the highest throughput in the scenario named enqueue-zigzag-dequeue
Hardware
All benchmarks were executed on a MacBook Pro A2251
Implementations being tested
The following implementations are tested in the benchmarks:
| Project | Class | Symbol |
|---|---|---|
| lite-fifo 1.0.1 (npm, code) | ChunkedQueue | ChunkedQueue |
| lite-fifo 1.0.1 (npm, code) | DynamicCyclicQueue | DynamicCyclicQueue |
| lite-fifo 1.0.1 (npm, code) | LinkedQueue | LinkedQueue |
| @datastructures-js/queue 4.2.3 (npm, code) | Queue | DatastructuresJsQueue |
| mnemonist 0.39.8 (npm, code) | Queue | MnemonistQueue |
| efficient-data-structures 0.1.310 (npm, no repo) | Queue | EfficientDataStructuresQueue |
| dsa.js 2.7.6 (npm, code) | Queue | DsaJsQueue |
Excluded implementations
The following implementations are array based, using its push and shift methods.
These implementations do not scale, as shift has an O(n) time complexity, and are therefore excluded.
| Project | Class / Function |
|---|---|
| @supercharge/queue-datastructure (npm, code) | Queue |
| js-data-structs (npm, code) | Queue |
| light-queue (npm, code) | Queue |
Scenarios
Each benchmark scenario has its own chart to easily visualize what it tests.
buffer then gradually decrease
Enqueue a lot of items, then dequeue rate > enqueue rate, so gradually remove the items.
RAM usage
| Implementation name | RAM usage | Diff |
|---|---|---|
| ChunkedQueue | 28379764 | (baseline) |
| DatastructuresJsQueue | 77274972 | +172% |
| DynamicCyclicQueue | 89208348 | +214% |
| EfficientDataStructuresQueue | 111981042 | +294% |
| MnemonistQueue | 136571954 | +381% |
| DsaJsQueue | 142313270 | +401% |
| LinkedQueue | 143340408 | +405% |
Operations per second
| Implementation name | Ops/sec | Diff |
|---|---|---|
| MnemonistQueue | 55494 | (baseline) |
| DatastructuresJsQueue | 52292 | -5% |
| ChunkedQueue | 35461 | -36% |
| DynamicCyclicQueue | 27125 | -51% |
| LinkedQueue | 21202 | -61% |
| DsaJsQueue | 16975 | -69% |
| EfficientDataStructuresQueue | 16812 | -69% |
zigzag
Enqueue a lot, then dequeue to zero, repeatedly.
RAM usage
| Implementation name | RAM usage | Diff |
|---|---|---|
| ChunkedQueue | 55647214 | (baseline) |
| DatastructuresJsQueue | 79077452 | +42% |
| DynamicCyclicQueue | 118208608 | +112% |
| DsaJsQueue | 143181248 | +157% |
| EfficientDataStructuresQueue | 143378496 | +157% |
| MnemonistQueue | 158173512 | +184% |
| LinkedQueue | 209267172 | +276% |
Operations per second
| Implementation name | Ops/sec | Diff |
|---|---|---|
| DatastructuresJsQueue | 60388 | (baseline) |
| MnemonistQueue | 58702 | -2% |
| LinkedQueue | 47190 | -21% |
| ChunkedQueue | 38555 | -36% |
| DynamicCyclicQueue | 37621 | -37% |
| EfficientDataStructuresQueue | 22436 | -62% |
| DsaJsQueue | 18806 | -68% |
enqueue-zigzag-dequeue
Enqueue a lot, then zigzag with 1/3 of the size, then dequeue to zero.
RAM usage
| Implementation name | RAM usage | Diff |
|---|---|---|
| ChunkedQueue | 72885086 | (baseline) |
| MnemonistQueue | 79495220 | +9% |
| DynamicCyclicQueue | 89370588 | +22% |
| DatastructuresJsQueue | 96505770 | +32% |
| LinkedQueue | 279495582 | +283% |
| DsaJsQueue | 371494706 | +409% |
| EfficientDataStructuresQueue | 383364174 | +425% |
Operations per second
| Implementation name | Ops/sec | Diff |
|---|---|---|
| DynamicCyclicQueue | 81741 | (baseline) |
| DatastructuresJsQueue | 65765 | -19% |
| MnemonistQueue | 65699 | -19% |
| ChunkedQueue | 37037 | -54% |
| LinkedQueue | 20902 | -74% |
| EfficientDataStructuresQueue | 17933 | -78% |
| DsaJsQueue | 17772 | -78% |
enqueue only
Simply enqueue a lot of items, without any dequeue.
RAM usage
| Implementation name | RAM usage | Diff |
|---|---|---|
| ChunkedQueue | 81687646 | (baseline) |
| DatastructuresJsQueue | 222984634 | +172% |
| MnemonistQueue | 223269990 | +173% |
| DynamicCyclicQueue | 334902982 | +309% |
| LinkedQueue | 359490772 | +340% |
| DsaJsQueue | 431317892 | +428% |
| EfficientDataStructuresQueue | 431489178 | +428% |
Operations per second
| Implementation name | Ops/sec | Diff |
|---|---|---|
| DatastructuresJsQueue | 56891 | (baseline) |
| MnemonistQueue | 53518 | -5% |
| ChunkedQueue | 32288 | -43% |
| DynamicCyclicQueue | 29873 | -47% |
| LinkedQueue | 9683 | -82% |
| EfficientDataStructuresQueue | 9452 | -83% |
| DsaJsQueue | 9334 | -83% |
Analysis (Repeated)
- In every scenario,
ChunkedQueue, introduced in this project, consumes the lowest amount of RAM - Performance-wise, in most scenarios, the implementations of @datastructures-js/queue and Mnemonist have the highest throughput of operations per second
- Surprisingly,
DynamicCyclicQueue, also introduced in this project, has the highest throughput in the scenario named enqueue-zigzag-dequeue