Benchmark: jQuery Each vs For in

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.2.1/jquery.min.js"></script>

Tests:

jQuery Each
var test = ['fe', 'fi', 'fo', 'fum']; $.each(test, function (ind, val) { console.log(val); });
For
var test = ['fe', 'fi', 'fo', 'fum']; for(i in test){ console.log(test[i]); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery Each
For

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two test cases: `jQuery Each` and `For`. The script preparation code is empty, indicating that no additional setup is required. However, the HTML preparation code includes a link to jQuery library (`<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.2.1/jquery.min.js"></script>`), which suggests that the benchmark aims to compare the performance of `$.each` method with traditional `for` loop.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

### 1. jQuery Each

```javascript
var test = ['fe', 'fi', 'fo', 'fum'];
$.each(test, function (ind, val) {
  console.log(val);
});
```

This test case uses the `$.each` method to iterate over an array and log each value to the console.

### 2. For

```javascript
var test = ['fe', 'fi', 'fo', 'fum'];
for(i in test){
  console.log(test[i]);
}
```

This test case uses a traditional `for` loop with an index variable `i` to iterate over the array and log each value to the console.

**Comparison of Options**

The benchmark aims to compare two approaches:

1. **jQuery Each**: This method uses the `$` object's built-in `each` function, which is designed for iterating over collections (like arrays). The performance of this method depends on the JavaScript engine's ability to optimize the iteration and the DOM library's impact on execution time.
2. **For**: This traditional loop is a more straightforward approach but may have different performance characteristics due to factors like array indexing, bounds checking, and potential issues with `for` loops in certain browsers.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some general pros and cons of each approach:

* **jQuery Each**
	+ Pros:
		- Built-in method, which might lead to better optimization by the JavaScript engine.
		- Less likely to have errors due to manual indexing (index out of bounds).
	+ Cons:
		- May require jQuery library, which can add overhead.
		- Limited control over iteration and logging.
* **For**
	+ Pros:
		- More straightforward and easy to understand.
		- No dependency on external libraries.
	+ Cons:
		- Potential errors due to manual indexing (index out of bounds).
		- May not be optimized by the JavaScript engine.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark results are likely affected by factors such as:

* Browser specifics, like Opera 93 in this case
* JavaScript engine optimizations and caching
* DOM library behavior (in this case, jQuery)
* Array size and iteration pattern

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There aren't any special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, keep in mind that modern JavaScript engines often support advanced features like async/await, arrow functions, and more.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for iterating over arrays might include:

* `forEach()` method (another built-in method)
* `map()`, `filter()`, or `reduce()` methods (more functional programming-oriented approaches)
* Custom loops using `while` or recursion
* WebAssembly-based loops (for performance-critical applications)

In summary, the benchmark aims to compare the performance of jQuery's `$.each` method with traditional `for` loop in a JavaScript execution context.

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/107.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/93.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Opera 93 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery Each	35247.7 Ops/sec
For	40538.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jQuery Each vs For in (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jQuery Each vs For

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery Each

For

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):