Benchmark: jQuery.each() vs Array.prototype.forEach() 2

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var arr = {aa: 12, bb: 33, cc:44, dd: 4444};

Tests:

jQuery.each
var temp; $.each(arr, function(key, val) { temp = val; });
Array.prototype.forEach
var temp; Object.keys(arr).forEach(function(key) { temp = this; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery.each
Array.prototype.forEach

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches for iterating over an array:

1. `$.each(arr, function(key, val) { ... });` - This uses jQuery's `$.each()` method.
2. `Object.keys(arr).forEach(function(key) { ... });` - This uses the `Array.prototype.forEach()` method.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates an array `arr` with four elements: `aa`, `bb`, `cc`, and `dd`.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a reference to jQuery version 3.3.1, which is used by the benchmark.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **jQuery.each**: This test case uses the `$.each()` method from jQuery to iterate over the array. The script prepares a temporary variable `temp` and assigns it the value of each element in the array.
2. **Array.prototype.forEach**: This test case uses the `forEach()` method on the `Object.keys()` result of the array, which returns an array of keys. The script prepares a temporary variable `temp` and assigns it the value of the current key (which is actually a string representation of the index).

**Library**

In both test cases, jQuery's `$.each()` method is used as a reference implementation for iteration.

**Special JavaScript Feature or Syntax**

There are no special features or syntaxes used in this benchmark.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **$.each()**: Pros:
	+ Easy to use, especially for those familiar with jQuery.
	+ Can be more concise than other approaches.
*   Cons:
    *   jQuery is a large library that adds overhead.
    *   The method is not part of the standard JavaScript API.
*   `Array.prototype.forEach()`: Pros:
    *   Part of the standard JavaScript API, so no additional libraries are needed.
    *   More efficient than $.each() in terms of performance.
*   Cons:
    *   Can be less intuitive for those unfamiliar with the method.
    *   May require more code to achieve the same result.

**Other Alternatives**

Some other alternatives for iterating over arrays in JavaScript include:

1. `for...of` loop: A modern and concise way to iterate over arrays using a `for...of` loop.
2. `map()`, `filter()`, and `reduce()` methods: While not as straightforward as `forEach()`, these methods can be used for more complex operations on array elements.

In the context of this benchmark, the use of `$.each()` versus `Array.prototype.forEach()` is primarily a matter of syntax choice and familiarity. The test results will likely show that `Array.prototype.forEach()` outperforms `$.each()` due to its native implementation in JavaScript.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/84.0.4147.125 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 84 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery.each	1796474.8 Ops/sec
Array.prototype.forEach	1720761.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jQuery.each() vs Array.prototype.forEach() 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jQuery.each vs Array.prototype.forEach

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery.each

Array.prototype.forEach

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):