Benchmark: js forEach vs for..of for @nodejs_ru

Script Preparation code:

   var arr_num = [];
   for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
       arr_num.push(i);
   }

   function numFn(i) {
       i = i * 3 * 8;
   }

   var arr_str = [];
   for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
       arr_str.push((Math.random() + 1).toString(36).substring(7));
   }

   function strFn(i) {
       i = i + '_';
   }

   var arr_obj = [];
   for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
       arr_obj.push({
           [(Math.random() + 1).toString(36).substring(7)]: true
       });
   }

   function objFn(i) {
       i.aaa = false;
   }

Tests:

forEach
arr_num.forEach((item) => { numFn(item); }); arr_str.forEach((item) => { strFn(item); }); arr_obj.forEach((item) => { objFn(item); });
for..of
for (const element of arr_num) { numFn(element); } for (const element of arr_str) { strFn(element); } for (const element of arr_obj) { objFn(element); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
forEach
for..of

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 benchmark and its various components.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two approaches for iterating over arrays: `forEach` and `for..of`. The test cases are designed to measure the performance of these approaches on different types of data: numbers, strings, and objects.

Here's a breakdown of the benchmark definition:

* **Name**: The name of the benchmark is "js forEach vs for..of  for @nodejs_ru".
* **Description**: There is no description provided.
* **Script Preparation Code**: This code prepares the test environment by creating three arrays: `arr_num`, `arr_str`, and `arr_obj`. Each array has 1000 elements, which are initialized with different types of data. The script also defines two functions for each type of data: `numFn`, `strFn`, and `objFn`.
* **Html Preparation Code**: There is no HTML preparation code provided.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **forEach**
	* This test case uses the `forEach` method to iterate over the three arrays.
	* For each array, it applies a function that performs some calculation on the element (e.g., `numFn`, `strFn`, or `objFn`).
2. **for..of**
	* This test case uses the `for..of` loop syntax to iterate over the three arrays.
	* For each array, it applies a similar function to the element as in the `forEach` test case.

**Libraries and Special JS Features**

There are no specific libraries mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the `for..of` loop syntax is a standard JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

* **`forEach` approach**:
	+ Pros:
		- Widely supported by most browsers and Node.js versions.
		- Easy to read and understand for developers familiar with the syntax.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower than `for..of` due to additional overhead of function calls.
* **`for..of` approach**:
	+ Pros:
		- Can be faster than `forEach` due to reduced overhead from function calls.
	+ Cons:
		- Not as widely supported by older browsers and Node.js versions.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark measures the performance of these two approaches on different types of data. This helps identify which approach is more efficient for specific use cases.

**Alternatives**

If you need to compare other iteration methods, consider using:

* `Array.prototype.map()`: Similar to `forEach`, but returns a new array instead of iterating over the original array.
* `Array.prototype.filter()`: Removes elements from an array based on a condition.
* Iterators or generators: Alternative approaches for iterating over arrays that can be more memory-efficient.

Keep in mind that the choice of iteration method depends on the specific requirements of your project.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/117.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 117 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
forEach	7116.5 Ops/sec
for..of	7447.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

js forEach vs for..of for @nodejs_ru (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: forEach vs for..of

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

forEach

for..of

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):