Benchmark: Looping through massive array

Looping through massive array (version: 0)

Based on https://blogs.oracle.com/greimer/entry/best_way_to_code_a

Comparing performance of: Basic for loop vs For loop but caching the length vs While loop that imitates a for loop vs While loop that imitates a for loop caching len vs While loop in reverse simplifying the test vs While looping by popping values vs for ... in loop vs for ... in loop with integer test vs For loop testing on existence rather than lengt vs For loop testing on existence plus array lookup vs For testing on existence rather than length array vs For reference vs Array.forEach() native implementation. vs For reference against forEach()

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Script Preparation code:

var arr = new Array(99999);

Tests:

Basic for loop
for (var i=0; i<arr.length; i++) {}
For loop but caching the length
for (var i=0, len=arr.length; i<len; i++) {}
While loop that imitates a for loop
var i = 0; while (i<arr.length) { i++; }
While loop that imitates a for loop caching len
var i=0, len=arr.length; while (i<len) { i++; }
While loop in reverse simplifying the test
var i = arr.length; while (i--) {}
While looping by popping values
var x; while (x = arr.pop()) {}
for ... in loop
for (var i in arr) {}
for ... in loop with integer test
var isInt = /(\^[0-9]$)|(\^[1-9][0-9]+$)/; for (var i in arr) { if(!isInt.test(i)){continue;} }
For loop testing on existence rather than lengt
for (var i=0; arr[i]; i++) {}
For loop testing on existence plus array lookup
for (var i=0; arr[i]; i++) { var x = arr[i]; }
For testing on existence rather than length array
for (var i=0, x; x = arr[i++];) {}
For reference
for (var i=0, len=arr.length; i<len; i++) { var x = arr[i]; }
Array.forEach() native implementation.
arr.forEach(function(x){});
For reference against forEach()
var f=function(x){}; for (var i=0, len=arr.length; i<len; i++) { f(arr[i]); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Basic for loop
For loop but caching the length
While loop that imitates a for loop
While loop that imitates a for loop caching len
While loop in reverse simplifying the test
While looping by popping values
for ... in loop
for ... in loop with integer test
For loop testing on existence rather than lengt
For loop testing on existence plus array lookup
For testing on existence rather than length array
For reference
Array.forEach() native implementation.
For reference against forEach()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 67 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Basic for loop	84.0 Ops/sec
For loop but caching the length	13243.2 Ops/sec
While loop that imitates a for loop	85.8 Ops/sec
While loop that imitates a for loop caching len	13581.0 Ops/sec
While loop in reverse simplifying the test	10952.1 Ops/sec
While looping by popping values	6555791.5 Ops/sec
for ... in loop	7380762.0 Ops/sec
for ... in loop with integer test	7075248.5 Ops/sec
For loop testing on existence rather than lengt	7797102.5 Ops/sec
For loop testing on existence plus array lookup	7862444.5 Ops/sec
For testing on existence rather than length array	7607980.5 Ops/sec
For reference	7715308.5 Ops/sec
Array.forEach() native implementation.	7491631.0 Ops/sec
For reference against forEach()	7991575.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's get to the interesting part!

The provided data appears to be a collection of test results, likely from an automated testing framework. The tests seem to focus on various iteration mechanisms in programming languages.

Here are some observations and insights:

1. **DevicePlatform**: All tests run on Windows desktop devices with Chrome 67.
2. **OperatingSystem**: The operating system is Windows.
3. **ExecutionsPerSecond**: This metric provides insight into the performance of each test, likely indicating how quickly the iteration mechanism executes.

Some interesting points to consider:

* The highest execution rate (7491631.0) was achieved by the `Array.forEach()` native implementation test.
* The lowest execution rates were recorded for tests using a "While" loop or "Basic for loop", suggesting that these iterations may be less efficient than others.

These observations are based on a limited dataset and should be taken with caution. More data would be necessary to draw more definitive conclusions about the performance of each iteration mechanism.

Related benchmarks:

Looping through massive array (version: 0)

Based on https://blogs.oracle.com/greimer/entry/best_way_to_code_a

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Basic for loop

For loop but caching the length

While loop that imitates a for loop

While loop that imitates a for loop caching len

While loop in reverse simplifying the test

While looping by popping values

for ... in loop

for ... in loop with integer test

For loop testing on existence rather than lengt

For loop testing on existence plus array lookup

For testing on existence rather than length array

For reference

Array.forEach() native implementation.

For reference against 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):