Benchmark: map vs forEach schnelligkeit correct

Tests:

map
const container = []; for(let i=0; i<1000000; i++){ const randomValue = Math.floor((Math.random() * 10) + 1); container.push({1: randomValue}); } const result = []; container.map(c => result.push(c["1"]));
forEach
const container = []; for(let i=0; i<1000000; i++){ const randomValue = Math.floor((Math.random() * 10) + 1); container.push({1: randomValue}); } const result = []; container.forEach(c => result.push(c["1"]));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
map
forEach

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/86.0.4240.75 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 86 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
map	0.5 Ops/sec
forEach	0.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two JavaScript methods: `map()` and `forEach()`. Both methods are used to iterate over an array and perform an operation on each element.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we have two options:

1.  **`map()`**: The `map()` method creates a new array with the results of applying a provided function on every element in this array.
2.  **`forEach()`**: The `forEach()` method executes a callback function once for each element in an array.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

*   **`map()`**:
    *   Pros:

*   Creates a new array, which can be more memory-efficient if you need to reuse the result.
        *   More concise and expressive, as it directly returns the desired output.
    *   Cons:

*   Can be slower than `forEach()` in some cases because of the additional overhead of creating a new array.
*   **`forEach()`**:
    *   Pros:

*   Faster execution speed compared to `map()`, especially for large arrays, since it doesn't require the creation of an intermediate array.
        *   More suitable when you don't need the resulting array (i.e., side effects).
    *   Cons:

*   Returns no value (`undefined`), which can be inconvenient if you're expecting a result.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

In this benchmark, there is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used. However, it's worth noting that `forEach()` returns `undefined`, whereas `map()` returns an array (or `null` if the input array is empty).

**Library Usage**

There are no libraries used in these benchmark definitions.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to iterate over arrays and perform operations on each element, here are some alternative approaches:

*   **For loops**: Using traditional `for` loops with index manipulation.
    *   Example: `const result = []; for (let i = 0; i < container.length; i++) { const randomValue = Math.floor((Math.random() * 10) + 1); result.push({1: randomValue}); }`
*   **Reduce()**: Using the `reduce()` method to accumulate results in a single array.
    *   Example: `const result = []; for (let i = 0; i < container.length; i++) { const randomValue = Math.floor((Math.random() * 10) + 1); result.push({1: randomValue}); }`
*   **Async/await or Promises**: Using asynchronous programming to process arrays in parallel.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics compared to `map()` and `forEach()`.

Related benchmarks:

map vs forEach schnelligkeit correct (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: map vs forEach

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

map

forEach

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):