Benchmark: for of vs Array.reduce vs Array.forEach vs for i for summing and array of integers

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
for(var i=0; i < 10000; i++) {
  arr.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.floor(10000)));
}

AخA
 
var arr = [];for(var i=0; i < 10000; i++) {  arr.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.floor(10000)));}

Tests:

for of

var sum = 0;
for (var e of arr) {
  sum += e;
}

 
var sum = 0;for (var e of arr) {  sum += e;}

forEach
var sum = 0; arr.forEach(e => {sum += e;})
var sum = 0;
arr.forEach(e => {sum += e;})

reduce

var sum = arr.reduce((acm, current) => acm + current);

 
var sum = arr.reduce((acm, current) => acm + current);

for i

var sum = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
  sum += arr[i];
}

 
var sum = 0;for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {  sum += arr[i];}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
for of
forEach
reduce
for i

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for of	158769.2 Ops/sec
forEach	60427.2 Ops/sec
reduce	91042.8 Ops/sec
for i	1699.4 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 months ago):

Let's break down the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

Benchmark Overview

The benchmark measures the performance of four looping methods in JavaScript:

for...of
Array.forEach
Array.reduce
for loop with a traditional index variable (i)

Each looping method is used to calculate the sum of an array of 10,000 random integers.

Options Compared

The benchmark compares the performance of these four looping methods:

Performance: The execution speed of each looping method.
Cons: Each looping method has its own trade-offs:
- for...of loops are concise and easy to read, but may not be as efficient as traditional loops.
- Array.forEach loops iterate over the array's elements, but require an explicit callback function.
- Array.reduce is a functional programming approach that reduces the array to a single value, which can be efficient for certain use cases.
- Traditional for loops are straightforward and often used, but may not be as concise or expressive as other looping methods.

Pros and Cons

Here's a brief summary of each looping method:

For...of: Pros - concise, easy to read; Cons - potential performance overhead due to the iterator object.
Array.forEach: Pros - convenient and expressive; Cons - requires an explicit callback function, which can lead to code duplication.
Array.reduce: Pros - functional programming approach, efficient for summing or reducing arrays; Cons - may be less intuitive for those unfamiliar with functional programming concepts.
For loop: Pros - straightforward and traditional; Cons - potentially less concise and readable.

Library and Special JS Features

None of the looping methods rely on external libraries. However, some features are used:

Math.floor is used to generate random numbers within a specific range.
The Array.prototype.forEach, Array.prototype.reduce, and Array.prototype.push methods are used by each looping method.

Test Case Explanation

Each test case uses the same script preparation code to initialize an array of 10,000 random integers. Then, each looping method is tested in isolation:

for...of: Iterates over the array using the for...of loop construct.
Array.forEach: Iterates over the array using the forEach method with a callback function.
Array.reduce: Reduces the array to a single value using the reduce method with an accumulator function.
Traditional for loop: Iterates over the array using a traditional for loop construct.

Other Alternatives

If you're interested in exploring other looping methods, consider:

Array.prototype.map
Arrow functions (=>)
Set or Map data structures for more complex operations

Feel free to experiment with these alternatives and compare their performance on MeasureThat.net!

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of four looping methods in JavaScript:

1. `for...of`
2. `Array.forEach`
3. `Array.reduce`
4. `for` loop with a traditional index variable (`i`)

Each looping method is used to calculate the sum of an array of 10,000 random integers.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these four looping methods:

* **Performance**: The execution speed of each looping method.
* **Cons**: Each looping method has its own trade-offs:
	+ `for...of` loops are concise and easy to read, but may not be as efficient as traditional loops.
	+ `Array.forEach` loops iterate over the array's elements, but require an explicit callback function.
	+ `Array.reduce` is a functional programming approach that reduces the array to a single value, which can be efficient for certain use cases.
	+ Traditional `for` loops are straightforward and often used, but may not be as concise or expressive as other looping methods.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each looping method:

* **For...of**: Pros - concise, easy to read; Cons - potential performance overhead due to the iterator object.
* **Array.forEach**: Pros - convenient and expressive; Cons - requires an explicit callback function, which can lead to code duplication.
* **Array.reduce**: Pros - functional programming approach, efficient for summing or reducing arrays; Cons - may be less intuitive for those unfamiliar with functional programming concepts.
* **For** loop: Pros - straightforward and traditional; Cons - potentially less concise and readable.

**Library and Special JS Features**

None of the looping methods rely on external libraries. However, some features are used:

* `Math.floor` is used to generate random numbers within a specific range.
* The `Array.prototype.forEach`, `Array.prototype.reduce`, and `Array.prototype.push` methods are used by each looping method.

**Test Case Explanation**

Each test case uses the same script preparation code to initialize an array of 10,000 random integers. Then, each looping method is tested in isolation:

1. `for...of`: Iterates over the array using the `for...of` loop construct.
2. `Array.forEach`: Iterates over the array using the `forEach` method with a callback function.
3. `Array.reduce`: Reduces the array to a single value using the `reduce` method with an accumulator function.
4. Traditional `for` loop: Iterates over the array using a traditional `for` loop construct.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other looping methods, consider:

* `Array.prototype.map`
* Arrow functions (`=>`)
* `Set` or `Map` data structures for more complex operations

Feel free to experiment with these alternatives and compare their performance on MeasureThat.net!

Related benchmarks:

for of vs Array.reduce vs Array.forEach vs for i for summing and array of integers (version: 0)

Test which looping method has the best performance regarding getting the total sum of an array of integers in Javascript

Comparing performance of: for of vs forEach vs reduce vs for i

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result