Benchmark: adsgfgjghjghjdjfgjhfgjh

Script Preparation code:

var test = []

  for(let i=1; i<200000; i++) {
    test.push({
      id: i,
      class: Math.floor(Math.random()*10)
    })
  }

Tests:

get item by indx
var acc = []; var item; var index; for(indx in test) { item = test[indx]; }
cycle by for in (indx is val)
var acc = []; var item; var index; for(indx in test) { }
cycle by for OF (elem is val)
var acc = []; var item; var index; var elem; for(elem of test) { }
cycle by for OF (elem is CONST)
var acc = []; var item; var index; for(const elem of test) { }
cycle by for IN (indx is CONST)
var acc = []; var item; for(const indx in test) { }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
get item by indx
cycle by for in (indx is val)
cycle by for OF (elem is val)
cycle by for OF (elem is CONST)
cycle by for IN (indx is CONST)

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 benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared options, pros/cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Context**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of different iteration methods in JavaScript arrays: `for...in`, `for...of` (with and without `const`), and indexing (`inx` or direct indexing). The test case generates a large array of 200,000 objects with random `id` properties.

**Iteration Methods Compared**

1. **`for...in`**: This method iterates over the object's properties using a loop variable that can take on any value, including strings and symbols.
2. **`for...of` (with `var`)**: This method iterates over the array elements directly, using the array's own length property as the loop counter.
3. **`for...of` (with `const`)**: Similar to the previous one, but uses a constant variable to avoid potential side effects and make the code more predictable.
4. **Indexing (`inx` or direct indexing)**: This method uses an index variable to directly access each element in the array.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`for...in`**:
	* Pros: Simple, easy to implement, works for all objects.
	* Cons: Can iterate over both own properties and inherited properties, potentially leading to performance issues if not used carefully.
2. **`for...of` (with `var`)**:
	* Pros: Faster than `for...in`, more suitable for arrays.
	* Cons: The loop variable is not constant, which can lead to unexpected behavior in some cases.
3. **`for...of` (with `const`)**:
	* Pros: Safe and predictable, avoids potential side effects.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of creating a constant variable.
4. **Indexing (`inx` or direct indexing)**:
	* Pros: Fastest, most predictable approach.
	* Cons: Only suitable for arrays; not applicable for objects with non-numeric keys.

**Library Used**

None explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark code. However, it's likely that some underlying libraries or frameworks are being used to execute and report the benchmark results.

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax**

The benchmark uses the `for...of` loop syntax, which is a relatively recent feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It provides a more concise and expressive way of iterating over arrays and other iterable objects. The use of `const` with `for...of` also highlights its benefits for predictable and safe iteration.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to the tested iteration methods include:

* Using `Array.prototype.forEach()`, which is designed specifically for iterating over arrays.
* Implementing custom iteration logic using callbacks or async/await syntax.

These alternatives might be more suitable in specific use cases, but they may not always provide the same level of performance and predictability as the tested methods.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
get item by indx	12.9 Ops/sec
cycle by for in (indx is val)	24.0 Ops/sec
cycle by for OF (elem is val)	4645.5 Ops/sec
cycle by for OF (elem is CONST)	3921.9 Ops/sec
cycle by for IN (indx is CONST)	69.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

adsgfgjghjghjdjfgjhfgjh (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: get item by indx vs cycle by for in (indx is val) vs cycle by for OF (elem is val) vs cycle by for OF (elem is CONST) vs cycle by for IN (indx is CONST)

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

get item by indx

cycle by for in (indx is val)

cycle by for OF (elem is val)

cycle by for OF (elem is CONST)

cycle by for IN (indx is CONST)

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):