Benchmark: loop count test - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

filter
var test = [{id: 1, name: 'test1', enabled: true}, {id: 2, name: 'test2', enabled: false}, {id: 3, name: 'test3', enabled: true}, {id: 4, name: 'test4', enabled: false}, {id: 5, name: 'test5', enabled: true}, {id: 6, name: 'test6', enabled: true}, {id: 7, name: 'test7', enabled: true}, {id: 8, name: 'test8', enabled: false}, {id: 9, name: 'test9', enabled: true}, {id: 10, name: 'test10', enabled: false}]; var enabled = test.filter(t => t.enabled).length;
forEach
var test = [{id: 1, name: 'test1', enabled: true}, {id: 2, name: 'test2', enabled: false}, {id: 3, name: 'test3', enabled: true}, {id: 4, name: 'test4', enabled: false}, {id: 5, name: 'test5', enabled: true}, {id: 6, name: 'test6', enabled: true}, {id: 7, name: 'test7', enabled: true}, {id: 8, name: 'test8', enabled: false}, {id: 9, name: 'test9', enabled: true}, {id: 10, name: 'test10', enabled: false}]; var enabled = 0; test.forEach(t => { if(t.enabled) { ++enabled; } });
for
var test = [{id: 1, name: 'test1', enabled: true}, {id: 2, name: 'test2', enabled: false}, {id: 3, name: 'test3', enabled: true}, {id: 4, name: 'test4', enabled: false}, {id: 5, name: 'test5', enabled: true}, {id: 6, name: 'test6', enabled: true}, {id: 7, name: 'test7', enabled: true}, {id: 8, name: 'test8', enabled: false}, {id: 9, name: 'test9', enabled: true}, {id: 10, name: 'test10', enabled: false}]; var enabled = 0; for(var i = 0; i < test.length; ++i) { if(test[i].enabled) { ++enabled; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
filter
forEach
for

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is empty, which means that the script preparation code and HTML preparation code are not provided. This allows users to write their own script and HTML to test specific scenarios.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three individual test cases:

1. **Filter**
	* Benchmark Definition: `var test = [...]; var enabled = test.filter(t => t.enabled).length;`
	* Purpose: To measure the performance of the `filter()` method.
	* Pros:
		+ Easy to implement and understand.
		+ Allows for a simple and concise benchmarking scenario.
	* Cons:
		+ May not accurately represent real-world scenarios where data is large or complex.
2. **forEach**
	* Benchmark Definition: `var test = [...]; var enabled = 0; test.forEach(t => { if(t.enabled) { ++enabled; } });`
	* Purpose: To measure the performance of the `forEach()` method.
	* Pros:
		+ Allows for a more comprehensive benchmarking scenario, including iteration and conditional statements.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be less readable and maintainable due to the use of an increment variable.
3. **for**
	* Benchmark Definition: `var test = [...]; var enabled = 0; for (var i = 0; i < test.length; ++i) { if (test[i].enabled) { ++enabled; } };`
	* Purpose: To measure the performance of a traditional `for` loop.
	* Pros:
		+ Similar to the `forEach()` method, but with a more explicit iteration syntax.
	* Cons:
		+ Less readable and maintainable compared to the `forEach()` method.

**Libraries**

In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, it is likely that modern browsers like Chrome use various internal libraries or APIs under the hood. These might include:

* V8 (Chrome's JavaScript engine) itself
* Web Workers (for concurrent execution)
* Native methods for array operations (e.g., `filter()`, `forEach()`)

**Special JS Features**

None of these test cases specifically target any special JavaScript features, such as:

* Arrow functions (`=>`)
* Async/await syntax (`async function(...) { ... }`)
* Promises
* Generator functions

However, the use of traditional `for` loops and increment variables might have implications for developers who are accustomed to using modern JavaScript features.

**Other Alternatives**

For those interested in exploring alternative benchmarking approaches or libraries, here are a few suggestions:

* **Benchmark.js**: A lightweight, modular benchmarking library that supports various test cases and output formats.
* **BenchPress.js**: Another popular benchmarking library for Node.js applications.
* **JsPerf**: An online benchmarking tool specifically designed for JavaScript performance comparisons.

These alternatives can provide more comprehensive or specialized benchmarking capabilities, depending on the specific use case.

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	7162982.0 Ops/sec
forEach	11672875.0 Ops/sec
for	11760222.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

loop count test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: filter vs forEach vs for

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

filter

forEach

for

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):