Benchmark: cache variabled - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [{name: 'test', age: 12234, sex: 1},{name: '34423', age: 1324232, sex: 0},{name: '4234', age: 134, sex: 0},{name: '3244', age: 12, sex: 1},{name: '34324', age: 4321, sex: 0},{name: 'test', age: 12234, sex: 1},{name: '34423', age: 1324232, sex: 0},{name: '4234', age: 134, sex: 0},{name: '3244', age: 12, sex: 1},{name: '34324', age: 4321, sex: 0},{name: 'test', age: 12234, sex: 1},{name: '34423', age: 1324232, sex: 0},{name: '4234', age: 134, sex: 0},{name: '3244', age: 12, sex: 1},{name: '34324', age: 4321, sex: 0},{name: 'test', age: 12234, sex: 1},{name: '34423', age: 1324232, sex: 0},{name: '4234', age: 134, sex: 0},{name: '3244', age: 12, sex: 1},{name: '34324', age: 4321, sex: 0},{name: 'test', age: 12234, sex: 1},{name: '34423', age: 1324232, sex: 0},{name: '4234', age: 134, sex: 0},{name: '3244', age: 12, sex: 1},{name: '34324', age: 4321, sex: 0},{name: 'test', age: 12234, sex: 1},{name: '34423', age: 1324232, sex: 0},{name: '4234', age: 134, sex: 0},{name: '3244', age: 12, sex: 1},{name: '34324', age: 4321, sex: 0},{name: 'test', age: 12234, sex: 1},{name: '34423', age: 1324232, sex: 0},{name: '4234', age: 134, sex: 0},{name: '3244', age: 12, sex: 1},{name: '34324', age: 4321, sex: 0},{name: 'test', age: 12234, sex: 1},{name: '34423', age: 1324232, sex: 0},{name: '4234', age: 134, sex: 0},{name: '3244', age: 12, sex: 1},{name: '34324', age: 4321, sex: 0},{name: 'test', age: 12234, sex: 1},{name: '34423', age: 1324232, sex: 0},{name: '4234', age: 134, sex: 0},{name: '3244', age: 12, sex: 1},{name: '34324', age: 4321, sex: 0},{name: 'test', age: 12234, sex: 1},{name: '34423', age: 1324232, sex: 0},{name: '4234', age: 134, sex: 0},{name: '3244', age: 12, sex: 1},{name: '34324', age: 4321, sex: 0},{name: 'test', age: 12234, sex: 1},{name: '34423', age: 1324232, sex: 0},{name: '4234', age: 134, sex: 0},{name: '3244', age: 12, sex: 1},{name: '34324', age: 4321, sex: 0},{name: 'test', age: 12234, sex: 1},{name: '34423', age: 1324232, sex: 0},{name: '4234', age: 134, sex: 0},{name: '3244', age: 12, sex: 1},{name: '34324', age: 4321, sex: 0},{name: 'test', age: 12234, sex: 1},{name: '34423', age: 1324232, sex: 0},{name: '4234', age: 134, sex: 0},{name: '3244', age: 12, sex: 1},{name: '34324', age: 4321, sex: 0}]

Tests:

for
let buf = ''; for(let i=0; i<arr.length; i++){ buf+=arr[i].name+'/'+arr[i].sex+'-'+arr[i].age; }
for..of
let buf = ''; for(const v of arr){ buf+=v.name+'/'+v.sex+'-'+v.age; }
for+cache
let buf = ''; for(let i=0, len=arr.length; i<arr.length; i++){ buf+=arr[i].name+'/'+arr[i].sex+'-'+arr[i].age; }
for+cache+cache
let buf = ''; for(let i=0, len=arr.length; i<arr.length; i++){ const item = arr[i]; buf+=item.name+'/'+item.sex+'-'+item.age; }
for+cache+cache+cache
let buf = '', arra = arr; for(let i=0, len=arra.length; i<arra.length; i++){ const item = arra[i]; buf+=arra[i].name+'/'+arra[i].sex+'-'+arra[i].age; }
for..of+cache
let buf = '', arra = arr; for(const v of arra){ buf+=v.name+'/'+v.sex+'-'+v.age; }
foreach + cache+ arrow
let arrs = arr; let buf=''; arrs.forEach((v)=> { buf+=v.name+'/'+v.sex+'-'+v.age;})
foreach + cache+ func
let arrs = arr; let buf=''; arrs.forEach(function(v){ buf+=v.name+'/'+v.sex+'-'+v.age;})
foreach
let buf=''; arr.forEach(function(v){ buf+=v.name+'/'+v.sex+'-'+v.age;})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
for..of
for+cache
for+cache+cache
for+cache+cache+cache
for..of+cache
foreach + cache+ arrow
foreach + cache+ func
foreach

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 dive into the benchmark results.

It appears that we have multiple tests with different variations, and their performance is being measured. Here are some observations:

1. **`foreach` vs `for` loops**: The test with only `foreach` loop (`"Test Name": "foreach "``) has a lower execution rate (281866.65625) compared to the other tests that use both `foreach` and other variations (e.g., `"Test Name": "for+cache+cache"`). This might indicate that the `foreach` loop is more efficient when used alone.
2. **`foreach` with caching**: The test with `foreach` loop and caching (`"Test Name": "foreach + cache+ arrow"`), which was introduced in a previous benchmark, seems to have a better performance (278367.5) than the original `foreach` test. This might suggest that caching can improve performance for certain use cases.
3. **`for..of` loop**: The test with only `for..of` loop (`"Test Name": "for..of"``) has a relatively low execution rate (275717.8125). It's not the lowest, but it's still decent.
4. **`for` loop with caching**: The test with only `for` loop and caching (`"Test Name": "for+cache"`), which is similar to the original benchmark, has a slightly higher performance than the previous version (30456.044921875).
5. **Other variations**: Some tests have multiple variations, such as adding or removing certain words from the `foreach` loops, but their performance is not significantly different.

Overall, these results might suggest that:

* The `foreach` loop can be more efficient when used alone.
* Caching can improve performance for certain use cases, like the `foreach + cache+ arrow` test.
* The `for..of` loop is relatively less efficient compared to other variations.
* Adding caching to a `for` loop can have a positive effect.

However, it's essential to note that these are benchmark results and might not be representative of real-world performance.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/86.0.4240.75 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 86 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for	30108.5 Ops/sec
for..of	275717.8 Ops/sec
for+cache	30456.0 Ops/sec
for+cache+cache	54023.9 Ops/sec
for+cache+cache+cache	281866.7 Ops/sec
for..of+cache	276825.2 Ops/sec
foreach + cache+ arrow	278367.5 Ops/sec
foreach + cache+ func	272885.3 Ops/sec
foreach	277493.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

cache variabled (version: 4)

Comparing performance of: for vs for..of vs for+cache vs for+cache+cache vs for+cache+cache+cache vs for..of+cache vs foreach + cache+ arrow vs foreach + cache+ func vs foreach

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

for

for..of

for+cache

for+cache+cache

for+cache+cache+cache

for..of+cache

foreach + cache+ arrow

foreach + cache+ func

foreach

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):