Benchmark: set vs array iteration + for each

Script Preparation code:

var a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].map(Math.random);
var b = new Set([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].map(Math.random))
var c = new Set([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].map(Math.random))
var d = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].map(Math.random);

Tests:

array
for (const x of a) {}
set
for (const x of b) {}
Array for Each
d.forEach(_ => _)
Set for Each
c.forEach(_ => _)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array
set
Array for Each
Set for Each

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different approaches: arrays, Sets, and foreach loops.

* **Arrays**: An array is a collection of values that can be accessed by index. In this case, the array `a` is populated with random numbers.
* **Sets**: A Set is an unordered collection of unique values. In this case, two Sets are created from the same array of random numbers: `b` and `c`.
* **foreach loops**: A foreach loop is a syntax for iterating over a collection of values. We have two versions: one using arrays (`d.forEach`) and another using Sets (`c.forEach`).

**Options being compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of:

1. Iterating over an array using a traditional `for` loop (`array`)
2. Iterating over a Set using a traditional `for` loop (`set`)
3. Using the `forEach` method to iterate over an array (`Array for Each`)
4. Using the `forEach` method to iterate over a Set (`Set for Each`)

**Pros and Cons**

* **Arrays**: Traditional loops are often faster, as they avoid the overhead of JavaScript's built-in iteration mechanisms. However, arrays can be less efficient in terms of memory usage.
* **Sets**: Sets offer a more modern and concise way of iterating, but may incur additional overhead due to their implementation.
* **foreach loops**: These provide a readable and easy-to-understand syntax, but may lose some performance compared to traditional loops.

**Library/Functionality being used**

None are explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's worth noting that Sets are implemented as JavaScript objects with certain optimizations for fast lookups and insertion.

**Special JS feature/syntax**
The `forEach` method is a modern JavaScript syntax that allows iterating over collections without the need for traditional loops. It's often used to make code more concise and readable.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to optimize these benchmarks further, you might consider:

1. Using Web Workers or parallel processing to take advantage of multiple CPU cores.
2. Optimizing memory allocation and deallocation using tools like V8's heap optimization.
3. Investigating the use of SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) instructions for vectorized operations.

Keep in mind that these optimizations are highly dependent on the specific implementation and hardware being used.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 17_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) CriOS/119.0.6045.109 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile iOS 119 on iOS 17.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array	17242676.0 Ops/sec
set	18937476.0 Ops/sec
Array for Each	15558199.0 Ops/sec
Set for Each	18969848.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

set vs array iteration + for each (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: array vs set vs Array for Each vs Set for Each

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array

set

Array for Each

Set for Each

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):