Benchmark: for vs foreach vs for..in vs for..of vs for cached 2

Script Preparation code:

var array = new Array(1000);

Tests:

for
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) { array[i]; }
foreach
array.forEach(function(e) { e; });
for in
for (var e in array) { e; }
for..of
for (var e of array) { e; }
for cached
const arrayLength = array.length; for (var i = 0; i < arrayLength; i++) { array[i]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
foreach
for in
for..of
for cached

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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of different loop constructs in JavaScript:

1. Traditional `for` loop
2. `forEach` loop (using the Array.prototype.forEach() method)
3. `for...in` loop (using the `for...in` statement with an array as its value)
4. `for...of` loop (using the `for...of` statement with an array as its value)
5. "Cached" `for` loop (using a cached variable for iteration)

**Library and Special JS Features**

None of the test cases explicitly use any external libraries or special JavaScript features other than built-in methods and syntax.

**Loop Comparisons**

The benchmark compares the performance of each loop type, comparing execution rates per second:

* **Traditional `for` loop**: Iterates over the array using a manual index variable (`i`). Pros: Direct control over iteration. Cons: Can lead to off-by-one errors or index out-of-bounds issues if not managed carefully.
* **`forEach` loop**: Uses the Array.prototype.forEach() method, which is designed for iterating over arrays. Pros: Easy to use and maintain. Cons: May have slower performance compared to manual indexing due to method overhead.
* **`for...in` loop**: Iterates over the array's properties using a `for...in` statement with an array as its value. This is not a typical use case for `for...in`, which is designed for iterating over object property names. Pros: None notable. Cons: May have slower performance due to unnecessary iteration of object properties.
* **`for...of` loop**: Iterates over the array's elements using a `for...of` statement with an array as its value. Pros: Easy to use and maintain. Cons: Limited control over iteration, as it relies on ES6+ features.
* **"Cached" `for` loop**: Uses a cached variable for iteration, which can improve performance by reducing the overhead of assigning new values to the index variable. Pros: Potential performance improvement due to reduced indexing overhead. Cons: May lead to confusion if not managed carefully.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show that:

* **`for...of` loop**: Outperforms other loop types, likely due to its optimized execution path and built-in support for array iteration.
* **`forEach` loop**: Has slightly lower performance compared to the `for...of` loop but is still relatively efficient.
* **Traditional `for` loop** and **"Cached" `for` loop**: Have slower performance, possibly due to the overhead of indexing or caching.

Keep in mind that these results are specific to this benchmark and may not reflect real-world scenarios where other factors like array size, iteration complexity, or system configuration might impact performance.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for iterating over arrays in JavaScript include:

* Using `Array.prototype.reduce()` or `Array.prototype.map()` methods
* Implementing custom iteration logic using `while` loops or recursion
* Leveraging third-party libraries or frameworks that provide optimized array iteration mechanisms

However, the traditional loop constructs and `for...of` loop remain widely used and recommended due to their simplicity and readability.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/125.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 125 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for	9718.9 Ops/sec
foreach	721908.1 Ops/sec
for in	841701.8 Ops/sec
for..of	1854028.2 Ops/sec
for cached	20191.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

for vs foreach vs for..in vs for..of vs for cached 2 (version: 0)

Compare loop performance

Comparing performance of: for vs foreach vs for in vs for..of vs for cached

Created: 6 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

foreach

for in

for..of

for cached

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):