Benchmark: for loop 1234 - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

forEach loop 1234
list = []; for (let i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) { list.push({ a: i, b: i, c: 0 }); } list.forEach((v) => { v.c = v.a + v.b; });
for loop 1234
let list = []; for (let i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) { list.push({ a: i, b: i, c: 0 }); } const len = list.length; for (var i = 0; i < len; i++) { list[i].c = list[i].a + list[i].b; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
forEach loop 1234
for loop 1234

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to help you understand what's being tested, compared, and considered.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a simple JavaScript script that creates an array of 1 million objects with three properties each: `a`, `b`, and `c`. The script then performs one of two operations on the array:

1. **Using `forEach` loop**: It uses the `forEach` method to iterate over the array, updating each object's `c` property by adding its `a` and `b` properties.
2. **Using traditional for loop**: It uses a traditional for loop (with a variable `i`) to iterate over the array, updating each object's `c` property by adding its `a` and `b` properties.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Using the `forEach` method with an arrow function
* Using a traditional for loop

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach:

**Using `forEach` method:**

Pros:

* More concise and readable code
* Less verbose than traditional for loops
* Built-in support for iterating over arrays in most modern browsers

Cons:

* May have performance overhead due to function call overhead
* Can be less efficient than traditional for loops, especially for large datasets

**Using traditional for loop:**

Pros:

* More control over iteration and indexing
* Can be more efficient for large datasets, as it avoids the overhead of function calls
* Familiar syntax for many developers

Cons:

* More verbose code
* Less readable code compared to `forEach` method

**Library Considerations**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library being used. However, some assumptions can be made about the environment and libraries that might be implicitly included.

* The presence of `let`, `const`, and arrow functions (`=>`) suggests a modern JavaScript environment with support for ES6+ features.
* The use of `forEach` method implies that the browser supports this method, which is widely supported in modern browsers.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. It's a straightforward comparison of two iteration methods.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives to compare might include:

* Using `map` method instead of `forEach`
* Using `reduce` method
* Using Web Workers for parallel processing
* Using Native WebAssembly (WASM) if applicable

Note that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark script and might not be relevant depending on the specific goals and requirements of the comparison.

**Additional Considerations**

When interpreting benchmark results, consider factors like:

* Browser version and platform specifics
* JavaScript engine optimizations and caching
* Memory allocation and deallocation patterns
* Garbage collection and other background processes

These factors can affect performance and might skew results. However, MeasurThat.net's approach focuses on measuring raw execution times, which helps to isolate the differences between iteration methods.

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/119.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 119 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
forEach loop 1234	25.3 Ops/sec
for loop 1234	33.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

for loop 1234 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: forEach loop 1234 vs for loop 1234

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

forEach loop 1234

for loop 1234

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):