Benchmark: array iteration Large - continue

Script Preparation code:

var myArrayLarge = Array(10000);
for (let i=0; i<10000; i++) {
	myArrayLarge[i] = i; 
}
console.log("setup complete!");

Tests:

for element of LARGE
let myArr = [] for (ele of myArrayLarge) { if (myArr.length > 300) { continue; } myArr.push(ele); }
for const element of LARGE
let myArr = [] for (const ele of myArrayLarge) { if (myArr.length > 300) { continue; } myArr.push(ele); }
array index LARGE
let myArr = new Array(300) for (let i=0; i<300; i++) { let something = myArrayLarge[i]; myArr[i] = myArrayLarge[i]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for element of LARGE
for const element of LARGE
array index LARGE

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark tests different ways to iterate over a large array (10,000 elements) in JavaScript and selectively add elements to a smaller array until it reaches a size of 300.  The code then compares the performance of three approaches:

**Test Cases:**

* **"for element of LARGE":**  This uses a `for...of` loop, which is designed for iterating over iterable objects like arrays. It's considered modern and efficient.
    * **Pros:** Concise, readable, and often performs well. 
    * **Cons:** Can be slightly slower than other methods if the array size is very large.

* **"for const element of LARGE":** This uses a `for...of` loop with the `const` keyword for variable declaration. It's functionally identical to the previous test case.

* **"array index LARGE":**  This approach iterates over the array using a traditional `for` loop with an index (`i`) and directly accesses elements using their index. 
    * **Pros:** Can sometimes be faster than loops that rely on iteration mechanisms like `for...of`.
    * **Cons:** Less readable, potentially more error-prone (due to potential for `index out of bounds` errors), and not as concise.

**Benchmark Results:** As you can see from the results, the "array index LARGE" method performs the best in terms of executions per second.

**Alternatives and Considerations:**

* **Library Usage:** The benchmark doesn't use any external JavaScript libraries. Libraries like Lodash or Ramda could potentially offer optimized functions for array iteration.
* **Algorithm Optimization:** Depending on your specific needs, you might explore different algorithms (like filtering) to achieve the desired result more efficiently.
* **Profiling Tools:** If you need deeper performance insights, tools like Chrome's DevTools can help pinpoint bottlenecks within your code.

Let me know if you have any other questions!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.87 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 67 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for element of LARGE	175.7 Ops/sec
for const element of LARGE	4319.0 Ops/sec
array index LARGE	8678.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

array iteration Large - continue (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: for element of LARGE vs for const element of LARGE vs array index LARGE

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

for element of LARGE

for const element of LARGE

array index LARGE

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated 29 days ago):