Benchmark: Test for tiktok - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var array = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]

Tests:

map
array.map(item => console.log(item))
forEach
array.forEach(item => console.log(item))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
map
forEach

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the test cases and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for measuring the performance of JavaScript microbenchmarks. The "Name" field specifies the name of the benchmark ("Test for tiktok"), while the "Description" field is empty (null). This suggests that the benchmark is designed to test a specific functionality or feature related to TikTok.

**Script Preparation Code**

The "Script Preparation Code" section defines an array `array` containing integers from 1 to 9. This code snippet is used as input for both benchmark tests: `map` and `forEach`. The purpose of this code snippet is likely to create a simple array that can be manipulated by the microbenchmark tests.

**Html Preparation Code**

The "Html Preparation Code" section is empty (null), indicating that no HTML-related setup or cleanup is required for these benchmark tests.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **map**: The benchmark definition `array.map(item => console.log(item))` tests the performance of the `map()` method, which creates a new array with the results of applying a provided function to each element in the original array.
2. **forEach**: The benchmark definition `array.forEach(item => console.log(item))` tests the performance of the `forEach()` method, which executes a callback function once for each element in the array.

**Comparison Options**

The test cases compare two approaches:

*   **Map**
*   **ForEach**

These options are compared in terms of their performance. The "map" option is expected to be faster than the "forEach" option because `map()` returns an iterator, whereas `forEach()` executes the callback function synchronously.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

*   **Map**: Pros:
    *   Faster performance due to returning an iterator.
    *   Easier iteration over resulting array.
    *   Reduces DOM manipulation overhead (if applicable).
*   **ForEach**: Pros:
    *   Simpler code structure and syntax.
    *   More intuitive for some developers.

**Other Considerations**

Some additional considerations for these benchmark tests:

*   The use of `console.log()` in the callback functions is likely intended to measure the number of iterations executed, rather than their performance directly. In real-world applications, you would typically process or manipulate the data in a more meaningful way.
*   This benchmark might not accurately represent typical JavaScript scenarios where these methods are used.

**Libraries and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark:

*   The `map()` and `forEach()` methods are part of the ECMAScript standard library (JavaScript).
*   No special JavaScript features or syntax are being tested in this benchmark. However, other benchmarks might test specific features like async/await, generators, or modules.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches for similar performance tests:

*   Instead of using `map()` and `forEach()`, you could use more advanced data structures, such as arrays or sets, to measure iteration times.
*   You might also consider testing other array methods like `reduce()`, `filter()`, or `every()`.
*   For a more comprehensive benchmarking suite, you could add tests for various DOM manipulation scenarios.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternatives will depend on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/102.0.5005.61 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 102 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
map	7957.8 Ops/sec
forEach	11806.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Test for tiktok (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: map vs forEach

Created: 2 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 26 days ago):