Benchmark: loop count - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

filter
var obj1 = {test1: [{prop1: 'test1', enabled: true}, {prop1: 'test2', enabled: false}, {prop1: 'test3', enabled: true}], test2: [{prop1: 'test1', enabled: false}, {prop1: 'test2', enabled: false}, {prop1: 'test3', enabled: true}, {prop1: 'test4', enabled: true}], test3: [{prop1: 'test1', enabled: false}, {prop1: 'test2', enabled: false}, {prop1: 'test3', enabled: false}, {prop1: 'test4', enabled: true}, {prop1: 'test4', enabled: false}]}; var count = 0; for(var key in obj1) { if(obj1.hasOwnProperty(key)){ count += obj1[key].filter(p => p.enabled).length; } }
forEach
var obj1 = {test1: [{prop1: 'test1', enabled: true}, {prop1: 'test2', enabled: false}, {prop1: 'test3', enabled: true}], test2: [{prop1: 'test1', enabled: false}, {prop1: 'test2', enabled: false}, {prop1: 'test3', enabled: true}, {prop1: 'test4', enabled: true}], test3: [{prop1: 'test1', enabled: false}, {prop1: 'test2', enabled: false}, {prop1: 'test3', enabled: false}, {prop1: 'test4', enabled: true}, {prop1: 'test4', enabled: false}]}; var count = 0; for(var key in obj1) { if(obj1.hasOwnProperty(key)){ obj1[key].forEach(p => { if(p.enabled) { ++count; } }) } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
filter
forEach

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros/cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON defines two benchmarks: "loop count" with no script or HTML preparation code specified.

**Test Cases**

There are only two individual test cases:

1. **Filter**: This test case uses a traditional `for` loop with `if` statements to filter an array of objects based on the presence of a specific property (`enabled`). The test code is:
```javascript
var obj1 = {test1: [{prop1: 'test1', enabled: true}, {prop1: 'test2', enabled: false}, {prop1: 'test3', enabled: true}], test2: [...], test3: [...]};

var count = 0;
for(var key in obj1) {
  if(obj1.hasOwnProperty(key)){
    obj1[key].forEach(p => {
      if(p.enabled) {
        ++count;
      }
    });
  }
}
```
**Comparison**

The two test cases differ only in the iteration mechanism:

* **Filter**: Uses a traditional `for` loop with `if` statements.
* **ForEach**: Uses an array method `forEach` to iterate over the objects.

**Pros/Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

* **Filter**:
	+ Pros: Straightforward and easy to understand. Can be optimized using native methods (e.g., `Array.prototype.filter()`) if available.
	+ Cons: May have performance overhead due to explicit looping.
* **ForEach**: 
	+ Pros: Efficient and concise, leveraging the optimized implementation of the `forEach` method.
	+ Cons: May not be as immediately obvious for developers unfamiliar with array methods.

**Library Used**

Neither test case explicitly uses a library. However, if we were to apply additional optimizations, we might consider using:

* **Array.prototype.filter()**: If available, this method can provide better performance compared to the traditional `for` loop approach.
* **Array.prototype.forEach()**: This method is also optimized and provides good performance.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The test cases use modern JavaScript features, including:

* **Arrow functions** (e.g., `p => p.enabled`)
* **Template literals** (not used in this case, but present in the benchmark definition)

These features are widely supported by modern browsers and can provide concise code.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to add more test cases or explore different optimization strategies, you could consider:

* **Loop unrolling**: Breaking out of traditional loops to optimize cache locality.
* **SIMD instructions**: Using parallel processing techniques to take advantage of CPU acceleration.
* **Native JavaScript methods**: Exploring built-in methods like `Array.prototype.map()`, `Array.prototype.reduce()`, or `Set` for optimized filtering and counting.

Feel free to ask if you have any further questions!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/64.0.3282.140 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 64 on Mac OS X 10.12.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
filter	3891662.0 Ops/sec
forEach	6678236.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

loop count (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: filter vs forEach

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

filter

forEach

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):