Benchmark: Loop Optimization Working

Loop Optimization Working (version: 1)

Checking differences between various for/while loops.

Comparing performance of: For loop, basic vs While loop, basic vs For loop, cached (inside for statement) vs For loop, cached (outside for statement) vs For loop, i-- (caching inside for loop) vs For loop, i-- (caching outside for loop) vs While loop, cached vs While loop, i-- vs map vs forEach

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Script Preparation code:

  var arr = [];
  for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
    arr[i] = i;
  }

  function someFn(ix) {
    return ix * 5 + 1 / 3 * 8;
  }

Tests:

For loop, basic
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) { someFn(arr[i]); }
While loop, basic
var i = 0; while (i < arr.length) { someFn(arr[i]); i++; }
For loop, cached (inside for statement)
for (var i = 0, len = arr.length; i < len; i++) { someFn(arr[i]); }
For loop, cached (outside for statement)
var len = arr.length; for (var i = 0; i < len; i++) { someFn(arr[i]); }
For loop, i-- (caching inside for loop)
for (var i = arr.length; i > 0; i--) { someFn(arr[i]); }
For loop, i-- (caching outside for loop)
var i = arr.length; for (; i > 0; i--) { someFn(arr[i]); }
While loop, cached
var len = arr.length; var i = 0; while(i < len){ someFn(arr[i]); i++; }
While loop, i--
var i = arr.length - 1; while(i > 0){ someFn(arr[i]); i--; }
map
arr.map(i => someFn(i))
forEach
arr.forEach(i => someFn(i))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
For loop, basic
While loop, basic
For loop, cached (inside for statement)
For loop, cached (outside for statement)
For loop, i-- (caching inside for loop)
For loop, i-- (caching outside for loop)
While loop, cached
While loop, i--
map
forEach

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/84.0.4147.105 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 84 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
For loop, basic	2134.0 Ops/sec
While loop, basic	2198.2 Ops/sec
For loop, cached (inside for statement)	2927.5 Ops/sec
For loop, cached (outside for statement)	3325.2 Ops/sec
For loop, i-- (caching inside for loop)	3298.9 Ops/sec
For loop, i-- (caching outside for loop)	3220.6 Ops/sec
While loop, cached	2067.5 Ops/sec
While loop, i--	2114.1 Ops/sec
map	3484.8 Ops/sec
forEach	3860.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is tested on the provided JSON?**

The provided JSON represents a set of test cases for measuring the performance of different loops and array operations in JavaScript.

Each test case consists of a `Benchmark Definition` string that describes the loop or array operation to be tested. The test cases cover various scenarios, including:

1. Basic for loops (with and without caching)
2. Basic while loops
3. For loops with caching inside and outside the loop
4. While loops with caching

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of each test case across different browsers and devices.

**Pros and cons of different approaches:**

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

1. **For loops with caching**: This approach can lead to better performance when dealing with large arrays, as it avoids re-allocating memory for each iteration.
	* Pros: Efficient use of memory, good performance
	* Cons: May not be optimal for small arrays or other scenarios where caching is not necessary
2. **For loops without caching**: This approach can lead to better performance in some cases, such as when dealing with small arrays or when the loop body is computationally expensive.
	* Pros: Can be faster than caching approach, good for small arrays
	* Cons: May lead to slower performance with large arrays due to memory re-allocations
3. **While loops**: This approach can lead to better performance in some cases, such as when dealing with arrays of fixed size or when the loop body is computationally expensive.
	* Pros: Can be faster than for loops, good for arrays of fixed size
	* Cons: May not be optimal for general-purpose use cases

**Other observations:**

1. **Browser variability**: The benchmark results show significant variations between browsers, highlighting the importance of testing across different platforms and browsers.
2. **Device variability**: The benchmark also shows device-specific performance differences, emphasizing the need to test on various devices to ensure compatibility.

In summary, the provided JSON represents a comprehensive set of tests for measuring the performance of JavaScript loops and array operations. By analyzing the results, developers can gain insights into the trade-offs between different approaches and optimize their code for better performance across various scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

Loop Optimization Working (version: 1)

Checking differences between various for/while loops.

Comparing performance of: For loop, basic vs While loop, basic vs For loop, cached (inside for statement) vs For loop, cached (outside for statement) vs For loop, i-- (caching inside for loop) vs For loop, i-- (caching outside for loop) vs While loop, cached vs While loop, i-- vs map vs forEach

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

For loop, basic

While loop, basic

For loop, cached (inside for statement)

For loop, cached (outside for statement)

For loop, i-- (caching inside for loop)

For loop, i-- (caching outside for loop)

While loop, cached

While loop, i--

map

forEach

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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