Benchmark: test for loop - 123122

Tests:

one
for (let i = 0; i < 20; i++) { console.log(i) }
two
for (let i = 0; i < 20; i++) { console.log(i) } for (let i = 0; i < 20; i++) { console.log(i) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
one
two

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and what are the pros/cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of JavaScript loops in different scenarios. The script preparation code is empty, which means that the JavaScript engine will execute the loop from scratch without any optimizations or caching.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. "one":
	* Benchmark Definition: `for (let i = 0; i < 20; i++) {\r\n\tconsole.log(i)\r\n}`
	* This is a simple for loop that logs numbers from 0 to 19.
2. "two":
	* Benchmark Definition: `for (let i = 0; i < 20; i++) {\r\n\tconsole.log(i)\r\n}\r\nfor (let i = 0; i < 20; i++) {\r\n\tconsole.log(i)\r\n}`
	* This test case combines two identical for loops. The second loop is nested inside the first one.

**Comparison of Approaches**

The benchmark is comparing three different approaches:

1. **Single Loop**: Only one loop, like in "one".
2. **Multi-Loop with Nesting**: Two or more loops, like in "two", where inner loops are executed multiple times.
3. **No Loops**: No loops at all.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Single Loop (like "one")**
	+ Pros: Easy to optimize, fewer memory allocations.
	+ Cons: May have overhead due to single-threaded execution.
* **Multi-Loop with Nesting (like "two")**
	+ Pros: Can utilize parallel processing, potentially lower overhead.
	+ Cons: More complex optimization opportunities, higher risk of performance degradation due to nested loops.
* **No Loops**
	+ Pros: Simplifies optimization, avoids potential pitfalls of loop execution.
	+ Cons: May not be representative of real-world scenarios that involve looping.

**Library and Special JavaScript Features**

There are no libraries or special JavaScript features used in this benchmark. It's a pure JavaScript test case.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to run similar benchmarks, you could consider using other alternatives:

* **V8.js**: The V8 JavaScript engine provides a benchmarking API that can be used to compare the performance of different JavaScript engines.
* **SpiderMonkey**: SpiderMonkey is another popular JavaScript engine that provides a benchmarking framework for comparing its performance against others.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require more setup and configuration, but they can provide more comprehensive results and insights into JavaScript engine optimization.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 123 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
one	14140.5 Ops/sec
two	6854.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test for loop - 123122 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: one vs two

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

one

two

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):