Benchmark: for vs find - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var users = [{name:'testsubject1',id:2134,poo:0},
             {name:'testsubject2',id:6342,poo:0},
             {name:'testsubject3',id:2456,poo:0},
             {name:'testsubject4',id:7658,poo:0},
             {name:'testsubject5',id:6453,poo:0},
             {name:'testsubject6',id:8966,poo:0},
             {name:'testsubject7',id:356,poo:0},
             {name:'testsubject8',id:356756,poo:0}];

Tests:

for
for (var i = 0; i < users.length; i++) users[i].poo += 123;
find
users.find(function(u){u.poo += 123;});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
find

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what is being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition provides two different approaches to achieve the same goal: iterating over an array of objects using a `for` loop versus using the `find()` method. The test aims to determine which approach is faster.

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are:

1. **For Loop**: A traditional `for` loop that iterates over the `users` array and increments the `poo` property of each object by 123.
2. **Find() Method**: The `find()` method, which takes a callback function as an argument, is used to find the first element in the array that satisfies the condition (in this case, incrementing the `poo` property by 123).

**Pros and Cons**

1. **For Loop**:
	* Pros: Generally more intuitive and easier to understand for developers familiar with traditional loops.
	* Cons: May be slower than other approaches, especially for large datasets.
2. **Find() Method**:
	* Pros: More concise and expressive, which can lead to better code quality and maintainability.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of function calls and the need to create a new object.

Other considerations:

* The `for` loop approach may be slower because it involves more iterations over the array (i.e., the length of the array plus 1).
* The `find()` method approach, on the other hand, only iterates over the array once, which can lead to better performance for large datasets.

**Library**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library used. However, the `Array.prototype.find()` method is a standard JavaScript method that is supported by most modern browsers and Node.js environments.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark. It's a straightforward comparison of two simple loop approaches.

Now, let's discuss some alternative approaches:

* **Array.prototype.forEach()**: This method would iterate over the array once, similar to the `find()` method approach.
* **Array.prototype.every()** or **Array.prototype.some()**: These methods might be slower than `find()` due to their different behavior and overhead.
* **Manual indexing with a loop**: Another way to implement the loop would be to use manual indexing (e.g., `for (var i = 0; i < users.length; i++)`) instead of the traditional `for` loop. This approach might be slower or more error-prone than the traditional `for` loop.

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these approaches can vary depending on the specific use case and environment.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for	877230.4 Ops/sec
find	11083220.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

for vs find (version: 0)

Testing loop performance

Comparing performance of: for vs find

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

find

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):