Benchmark: One For Loop vs Multiple For Loop

Script Preparation code:

var result = 0;
var data = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19];

Tests:

One For Loop
for (var i = 0, l = data.length; i < l; i++) { result += data[i]; result -= (data[i] - 1); result *= data[i]; }
Multiple For Loop
for (var i = 0, l = data.length; i < l; i++) { result += data[i]; } for (var i = 0, l = data.length; i < l; i++) { result -= (data[i] - 1); } for (var i = 0, l = data.length; i < l; i++) { result *= data[i]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
One For Loop
Multiple For Loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**What is tested?**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of two different approaches to calculating a result using a for loop:

1. **One For Loop**: The code uses a single for loop to calculate the result, which involves adding, subtracting, and multiplying values in the `data` array.
2. **Multiple For Loop**: The code uses three separate for loops to perform the same calculations as the One For Loop approach.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two different approaches:

* **One For Loop**: A single loop that performs all operations on the data array.
* **Multiple For Loop**: Three separate loops that perform individual operations on the data array (addition, subtraction, and multiplication).

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **One For Loop**:
	+ Pros: Simplified code, fewer loop iterations.
	+ Cons: May have better cache locality, as all operations are performed sequentially.
* **Multiple For Loop**:
	+ Pros: Better cache locality, as individual operations can be executed independently.
	+ Cons: More complex code, more loop iterations.

**Other considerations**

The benchmark also considers the impact of browser and device variations on performance. The "DevicePlatform" and "OperatingSystem" fields in the benchmark result indicate that the test was run on a Linux system with an x86_64 architecture (Chrome 64).

**Library usage**

None of the provided code snippets use any external libraries.

**Special JS features or syntax**

None of the code snippets use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, Promises, or functional programming constructs.

Now, let's discuss some alternative approaches that could be used to calculate this result:

1. **Using a more efficient algorithm**: A single loop with optimized operations (e.g., using SIMD instructions) might outperform the One For Loop approach.
2. **Parallelizing the calculation**: Using Web Workers or a parallel computing library like worker_threads or cluster could potentially speed up the Multiple For Loop approach by executing calculations concurrently.
3. **Using a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler**: If implemented correctly, a JIT compiler like V8's JIT or SpiderMonkey's JIT could optimize the code for better performance.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may require additional setup and configuration to be effective, and may not necessarily result in improved performance on all systems.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2025 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/64.0.3282.119 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 64 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
One For Loop	69057.0 Ops/sec
Multiple For Loop	68540.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

One For Loop vs Multiple For Loop (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: One For Loop vs Multiple For Loop

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

One For Loop

Multiple For Loop

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):