Benchmark: forEach vs for vs Query each

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.0/jquery.min.js"></script>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="style.min.css" type="text/css">
<link rel="stylesheet" href="style.min.css" type="text/css">
<link rel="stylesheet" href="style.min.css" type="text/css">
<link rel="stylesheet" href="style.min.css" type="text/css">
<link rel="stylesheet" href="style.min.css" type="text/css">

Tests:

forEach (Native)
var linkEls = document.querySelectorAll('link[href*=".min.css"]'); [].forEach.call(linkEls,function(el){ console.log(el); });
for (Native)
var linkEls = $('.class'); for(var i = 0; i < linkEls.length; i++) { var el = linkEls[i]; console.log(el); }
each (jQuery)
$('link[href*=".min.css"]').each(function(){ console.log(this); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
forEach (Native)
for (Native)
each (jQuery)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test that compares three approaches: native `for`, native `forEach`, and jQuery's `each`. We'll break down each option, its pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Native for**

This approach uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the elements:
```javascript
var linkEls = document.querySelectorAll('link[href*=\".min.css\"]');
[].forEach.call(linkEls, function(el) {
  console.log(el);
});
```
Pros:

1. **Performance**: Native `for` loops are generally faster than their jQuery counterparts.
2. **Less overhead**: No need to worry about jQuery's additional complexity.

Cons:

1. **Verbose code**: The `forEach.call()` method is needed, which can make the code harder to read.
2. **Limited flexibility**: This approach doesn't offer as much control over iteration as other methods.

**Native forEach**

This approach uses the built-in `forEach` method:
```javascript
var linkEls = document.querySelectorAll('link[href*=\".min.css\"]');
[].forEach.call(linkEls, function(el) {
  console.log(el);
});
```
Pros:

1. **Concise code**: The `forEach` method makes the code more readable and easier to maintain.
2. **Flexibility**: This approach allows for easy iteration over arrays or other iterable objects.

Cons:

1. **Overhead**: The `forEach.call()` method adds a small overhead compared to native `for` loops.
2. **Browser limitations**: Older browsers might not support the `forEach` method.

**jQuery each**

This approach uses jQuery's `each` method:
```javascript
$('#link[href*=\".min.css\"]').each(function() {
  console.log(this);
});
```
Pros:

1. **Convenience**: jQuery provides a convenient way to iterate over elements without worrying about the underlying loop.
2. **Cross-browser compatibility**: jQuery's `each` method is supported by most modern browsers.

Cons:

1. **Overhead**: jQuery introduces additional complexity and overhead compared to native approaches.
2. **Performance impact**: jQuery's DOM manipulation can lead to slower performance for large datasets.

**Library and framework considerations**

In this benchmark, the library used is jQuery. This means that the test results are specifically optimized for jQuery versions 3.x and later. If you were to run this benchmark with an earlier version of jQuery or a different library, the results might not be directly comparable.

**Special JavaScript features**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing three common iteration approaches: native `for`, native `forEach`, and jQuery's `each`.

In summary:

* Native `for` loops offer performance and simplicity, but with more verbose code.
* Native `forEach` loops provide conciseness and flexibility, but with some overhead.
* jQuery's `each` method offers convenience and cross-browser compatibility, but with additional complexity and potential performance impact.

If you're looking for alternatives to these approaches, consider:

1. Vanilla JavaScript libraries like Lodash or Ramda, which offer higher-level functions for iteration and array manipulation.
2. Alternative DOM manipulation libraries, such as Cheerio or Puppeteer, which might provide better performance or flexibility for specific use cases.
3. Modern browser-specific features, such as Web Workers or Web Assembly, which can be used to offload computationally intensive tasks.

Keep in mind that the choice of iteration approach depends on your project's specific requirements, performance constraints, and personal preference.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
forEach (Native)	71847.9 Ops/sec
for (Native)	2209158.2 Ops/sec
each (jQuery)	51988.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

forEach vs for vs Query each (version: 0)

with <link>

Comparing performance of: forEach (Native) vs for (Native) vs each (jQuery)

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

forEach (Native)

for (Native)

each (jQuery)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):