Benchmark: loop overhead - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var range = new Array(1000000).fill(0)

Tests:

For of
for (const item of range) { void 0; }
For
for (let i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) { void 0; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
For of
For

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.164 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
For of	1237.9 Ops/sec
For	3757.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and its components for you.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, specifically measuring the overhead of two loop constructs: traditional `for` loops and the `for...of` loop. The goal is to compare the performance differences between these two constructs in terms of execution time per second.

**Options Compared**

Two main options are being compared:

1. **Traditional `for` loop**: A standard `for` loop with an incrementing index (`let i = 0; i < 1000000; i++`) that iterates over a large array.
2. **`for...of` loop**: The newer `for...of` loop construct, which is used for iterating over arrays or other iterable objects.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Traditional `for` Loop**:
	* Pros: Well-established, widely supported, and easy to understand.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of incrementing an index.
2. **`for...of` Loop**:
	* Pros: More concise and expressive than traditional `for` loops, with better support for iterable objects.
	* Cons: May have slower performance compared to traditional `for` loops due to additional overhead (e.g., creating iterators).

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses a large array (`range`) with 1 million elements, which provides a high degree of parallelism and helps to isolate the loop construct differences.
* The script preparation code initializes an empty array (`range`) before running each test case.
* No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in these benchmarks.

**Library Used**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's likely that the benchmark uses a standard JavaScript implementation (e.g., V8 for Chrome) without any additional libraries or frameworks affecting the performance comparison.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the test cases use special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is required for the loop constructs being compared.

**Alternative Benchmarking Approaches**

Other alternatives to this microbenchmark approach might include:

1. **Using a JIT compiler**: Measuring the performance differences between traditional `for` loops and `for...of` loops using a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler like V8.
2. **Profiling loop performance**: Using profiling tools (e.g., Chrome DevTools' Profiler) to measure the execution time of specific code paths within a larger program, rather than focusing on microbenchmarking isolated loop constructs.
3. **Comparing with native languages**: Measuring the performance differences between JavaScript and native languages like C++ or Rust, which might provide better performance characteristics for certain types of computations.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may not be as straightforward to set up and execute, but they can provide more comprehensive insights into the performance characteristics of different programming paradigms.

Related benchmarks:

loop overhead (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: For of vs For

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

For of

For

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):