Benchmark: set loop - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var set1 = new Set();
var count = 1000;
for(var i = 0; i<count; i++)
{
  set1.add(i);
}

Tests:

for
for (const contentId of set1) { set1.has(contentId); }
foreach
function setTest(contentId){ set1.has(contentId); } set1.forEach(setTest)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
foreach

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 Overview**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of two different approaches for iterating over a Set data structure in JavaScript:

1. **For loop**: The first test case uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the elements of the Set.
2. **forEach method**: The second test case uses the `forEach` method provided by the Set interface to iterate over its elements.

**What's being tested?**

The benchmark is testing the following aspects:

* Execution time: How long does it take to execute each approach for a large number of iterations?
* Performance difference between two approaches
* Consistency across different browsers and devices

**Options compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Traditional `for` loop**: This is a manual, iterative approach that uses an index variable (`i`) to iterate over the elements of the Set.
2. **`forEach` method**: This is a built-in method provided by the Set interface that allows you to iterate over its elements without manually keeping track of an index.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

**Traditional `for` loop**

Pros:

* Flexibility: You can control the iteration process and handle edge cases as needed.
* Understanding: This is a basic, fundamental concept that many developers are familiar with.

Cons:

* Performance: Manual iteration can be slower than using built-in methods like `forEach`.
* Error-prone: If not implemented correctly, manual iteration can lead to errors or performance issues.

**`forEach` method**

Pros:

* Performance: Built-in methods like `forEach` are optimized for performance and usually faster.
* Conciseness: It's a more concise way to iterate over a collection without manual index management.

Cons:

* Less control: You have less control over the iteration process, which might be a disadvantage in certain scenarios.
* Browser support: Not all browsers support the `forEach` method on Sets; this might not be an issue for modern browsers but could be important for older or less common ones.

**Library and syntax**

No specific library is used in these benchmark tests. The Set data structure and its methods (like `has` and `forEach`) are part of the standard JavaScript API.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There's no special JS feature or syntax being used here, other than the built-in `forEach` method on Sets. No experimental features like async/await or new array methods (e.g., `map`, `filter`, `reduce`) are employed.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to test alternative approaches for iterating over a Set, some examples could include:

* Using a custom `next()` function or iterator
* Utilizing Web Workers or other parallel processing mechanisms
* Implementing a custom iterative algorithm from scratch

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely have different performance characteristics and might not be as efficient as using built-in methods like `forEach`.

The provided benchmark tests the performance of two established approaches for iterating over Sets: traditional manual iteration (`for` loop) versus the optimized, built-in `forEach` method. By comparing execution times across different browsers and devices, this benchmark helps identify performance differences and provides insights into how to optimize Set-based code in JavaScript.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/103.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 103 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for	13711.5 Ops/sec
foreach	13404.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

set loop (version: 0)

set loop

Comparing performance of: for vs foreach

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

foreach

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):