Benchmark: loop vs command - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

loop
const fn1 = ()=>{} const fn2 = ()=>{} const fn3 = ()=>{} const a = [fn1,fn2,fn3] a.forEach(fn=>fn())
command
const fn1 = ()=>{} const fn2 = ()=>{} const fn3 = ()=>{} fn1() fn2() fn3()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
loop
command

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by a JSON object with the following properties:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which in this case is "loop vs command".
* `Description`: An optional description of the benchmark, but it's null in this case.
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: These fields are empty, indicating that no additional code needs to be prepared before running the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:

1. **"loop"`**: This test case runs a loop that iterates over an array containing three functions (`fn1`, `fn2`, and `fn3`). The loop executes each function in turn.
2. **"command"`**: This test case calls the three functions (`fn1`, `fn2`, and `fn3`) directly, without using a loop.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases are comparing the performance of executing functions in a loop versus directly calling them.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

* **Loop**: This approach can be more flexible and efficient for certain use cases, such as iterating over data or performing tasks that require iteration. However, it may incur overhead due to the repeated function calls and potential caching issues.
* **Direct Call**: This approach is often simpler and faster, as it avoids the overhead of loop execution and potential caching issues. However, it can be less flexible and limiting for certain use cases.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition or individual test cases.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in these benchmarks. They appear to be standard ES6+ JavaScript code.

**Other Alternatives**

To compare loop vs command execution, other alternatives could include:

* **Array.prototype.forEach()**: This method iterates over an array and calls a provided function for each element.
* **SetInterval()**: This method creates an interval timer that executes a specified function at regular intervals.
* **Recursive functions**: This approach can be used to iterate over data, but it may incur higher overhead due to repeated function calls.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not directly compare to the "loop" and "command" approaches described in the benchmark.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/117.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 117 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
loop	25588092.0 Ops/sec
command	973222912.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

loop vs command (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: loop vs command

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

loop

command

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):