Benchmark: _.forEach() vs _.each() vs [].forEach()

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.21/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var testArray = [{
        key1: 'val1-1',
        key2: 'val2-1'
    },
    {
        key1: 'val1-2',
        key2: 'val2-2'
    },
    {
        key1: 'val1-3',
        key2: 'val2-3'
    },
    {
        key1: 'val1-4',
        key2: 'val2-4'
    },
    {
        key1: 'val1-5',
        key2: 'val2-5'
    },
    {
        key1: 'val1-6',
        key2: 'val2-6'
    },
    {
        key1: 'val1-7',
        key2: 'val2-7'
    }
];

Tests:

_.forEach() Test
_.forEach(testArray, (arr, index) => { console.info( arr, index ); })
_.each() Test
_.each(testArray, (arr, index) => { console.info( arr, index ); })
[].forEach() Test
testArray.forEach((arr, index) => { console.info( arr, index ); })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.forEach() Test
_.each() Test
[].forEach() Test

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.forEach() Test	47648.1 Ops/sec
_.each() Test	47477.7 Ops/sec
[].forEach() Test	56954.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of three approaches to iterate over an array: Lodash's `_.forEach()` and `_.each()`, and JavaScript's native `[].forEach()` method.

**Options Compared**

1. **Lodash's _.forEach()**: This function iterates over the array using a callback function, which is executed for each element in the array.
2. **Lodash's _.each()**: Similar to `_.forEach()`, but it also takes an optional `keys` argument, which allows iterating over both values and keys of objects in the array.
3. **JavaScript's native [].forEach()**: This method iterates over the array using a callback function, similar to Lodash's `_.forEach()`.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Lodash's _.forEach()` and _.each()`**:
	* Pros: Provides a convenient way to iterate over arrays with minimal code.
	* Cons: Adds extra dependencies (Lodash) and may have performance overhead due to the additional function call.
2. **JavaScript's native [].forEach()**:
	* Pros: Built-in, no additional dependencies required, and optimized for performance.
	* Cons: Requires more code compared to Lodash's `_.forEach()` and `_.each()`.

**Library and Purpose**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. In this benchmark, Lodash's `_.forEach()` and `_.each()` are used to provide a convenient way to iterate over arrays with minimal code.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition.

**Other Alternatives**

If you prefer not to use Lodash, you can also use other JavaScript libraries like Underscore.js or Ramda, which provide similar functions for array manipulation. Alternatively, you can implement your own custom iteration methods using traditional `for` loops or recursive functions.

It's worth noting that the benchmark is designed to compare the performance of these three approaches, allowing users to decide which one best suits their use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

_.forEach() vs _.each() vs [].forEach() (version: 2)

Lodash vs ES6 비교

Comparing performance of: _.forEach() Test vs _.each() Test vs [].forEach() Test

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

_.forEach() Test

_.each() Test

[].forEach() Test

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):