Benchmark: map and filter vs for

Script Preparation code:

var data = Array.from({length: 100000}, (_, i) => i);

Tests:

Map and Filter
const results = data .map((value) => value * 2) .filter((value) => value % 4 === 0); return results;
for loop
const length = data.length; const results = []; for (let j = 0; j < length; j++) { const value = data[j]; if (value % 2 === 0 && value % 4 === 0) { results.push(value * 2); } } return results;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Map and Filter
for loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/118.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 118 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Map and Filter	462.7 Ops/sec
for loop	2130.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition, test cases, and latest benchmark results to help explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark. It defines two benchmark tests:

1. **Map and Filter**: This test creates an array `data` with 100,000 elements using `Array.from`. The `map()` method is then applied to the array, multiplying each element by 2. The resulting array is then filtered using `filter()`, keeping only elements where the value modulo 4 equals 0.
2. **For Loop**: This test creates an empty array `results` and iterates through the original `data` array using a traditional for loop. Inside the loop, it checks if each element is even (using `% 2 === 0`) and divisible by 4 (using `% 4 === 0`). If both conditions are true, the value multiplied by 2 is pushed into the `results` array.

**Options Compared**

The two tests compare the performance of:

1. **Array methods (`map()` and `filter()`)**: These methods are part of the ECMAScript standard and provide a concise way to process arrays.
2. **Traditional for loop**: This approach involves manual iteration through the array using an index variable.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Array methods (Map and Filter)**:
	+ Pros: Concise, readable code; easy to understand and maintain; often more efficient than traditional loops.
	+ Cons: May have performance overhead due to function calls and object creation.
* **Traditional for loop (For Loop)**:
	+ Pros: Can be more efficient since it avoids the overhead of function calls and object creation. Also, it can be easier to optimize specific parts of the loop.
	+ Cons: Code is often longer and less readable; error-prone due to indexing and conditional logic.

**Library Usage**

The `Array.from()` method uses the `Array.prototype.from()` API, which is a part of the ECMAScript standard. It creates a new array from an iterable (in this case, an object with a `values()` property). This library is not specific to JavaScript but rather a built-in feature.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in these benchmarks. The tests only rely on the standard ECMAScript syntax and APIs.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between array methods (Map and Filter) and traditional for loops, consider the following:

* **Code readability**: If code readability is crucial, array methods might be a better choice.
* **Performance**: For performance-critical sections of code or in applications with strict execution time requirements, traditional for loops might be more efficient.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to these benchmarks could include:

1. Using `forEach()` instead of `map()` and `filter()`, which also process arrays but are slightly different.
2. Comparing performance using other array methods like `reduce()` or `every()` and `some()`.
3. Adding more test cases, such as using `reduce()` or other library functions, to provide a broader understanding of the trade-offs between different approaches.

Keep in mind that benchmarking JavaScript code is complex and may involve many factors, including hardware, software, and interpreter nuances. This analysis provides a general overview of the provided benchmarks but might not cover all possible variations or edge cases.

Related benchmarks:

map and filter vs for (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Map and Filter vs for loop

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Map and Filter

for loop

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):