var arr = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
arr[i] = i;
}
function someFn(i) {
return i * 3 * 8;
}
arr.forEach(someFn)
for (var i = 0, len = arr.length; i < len; i++) {
someFn(arr[i]);
}
arr.map(someFn)
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
foreach | |
for | |
map |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
foreach | 81311.5 Ops/sec |
for | 7338.3 Ops/sec |
map | 62900.3 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.
Benchmark Overview
The benchmark measures the performance of three different loops in JavaScript: foreach
, for
, and map
. The test case uses a fixed-size array arr
with 1000 elements, initialized with values from 0 to 999. Each loop iterates over this array, applying a simple function someFn(i)
that multiplies the input by 3 and 8.
Options Compared
The three loops being compared are:
for
loop to iterate over the array elements by their index.Pros and Cons of Each Approach
map()
due to overhead from callback function execution.forEach()
and map()
, as there's no overhead from callback functions.forEach()
when dealing with large arrays and caching of intermediate results.Special Considerations
The benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard language. However, it's worth noting that modern browsers may optimize certain methods or functions, which could affect the results.
Alternative Approaches
Other alternatives for iterating over arrays in JavaScript include:
forEach()
but allows for a custom context object.Set
and its methods can be more efficient than traditional looping.For more complex or large-scale performance benchmarks, consider exploring additional JavaScript performance testing tools and frameworks, such as WebPageTest or JSHint.