Benchmark: Set union forEach vs forOf

Script Preparation code:

var a = new Set();
for (var i = 0; i < 100000; i++) {
  a.add(i);
}

var b = new Set();
for (var i = 0; i < 200000; i+= 2) {
  b.add(i);
}

Tests:

forEach
const union = new Set(a); b.forEach(val => union.add(val));
for of
const union = new Set(a); for(const val of b) { union.add(val); }
forEach - no copy
b.forEach(val => a.add(val));
forOf - no copy
for(const val of b) { a.add(val); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
forEach
for of
forEach - no copy
forOf - no copy

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of Set union microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches to create a set union in JavaScript: using `forEach` with the `add` method and using `for...of` loop with the same method. The test case uses JavaScript sets, which are implemented as hash tables to store unique values.

**Options Compared**

There are four options compared:

1. **`forEach` with `add`**: This approach iterates over an array (set) using a traditional `forEach` loop and adds each element to the resulting set using the `add` method.
2. **`for...of` loop with `add`**: Similar to the previous option, but uses a `for...of` loop instead of `forEach`. This approach is more concise and allows for better performance due to the optimized engine for this syntax.
3. **`forEach` without copy**: In this variation, the `forEach` loop does not create a new array (set) by copying the elements, but rather iterates over the original set. The `add` method is still used to add elements to the resulting set.
4. **`for...of` loop without copy**: Similar to the previous option, but uses a `for...of` loop instead of `forEach`. This approach also does not create a new array (set) by copying the elements.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **`forEach` with `add`**: Pros: Easy to understand, widely supported. Cons: May create intermediate arrays or objects, can be slower due to iteration overhead.
* **`for...of` loop with `add`**: Pros: More concise, optimized for performance. Cons: Less intuitive for some developers, may require explicit type casting if used in older JavaScript versions.
* **`forEach` without copy**: Pros: Reduces memory allocation and garbage collection overhead. Cons: May not be as readable or maintainable due to the lack of intermediate data structures.
* **`for...of` loop without copy**: Pros: Similar performance benefits to the previous option, with added clarity due to the explicit iteration syntax. Cons: Still may require explicit type casting if used in older JavaScript versions.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses native JavaScript sets (implemented as hash tables) and arrays (implemented as buffers or arrays). No external libraries are required for this test case.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the options mentioned above rely on special JavaScript features like async/await, Promises, or decorators. The `for...of` loop is used in a traditional way to iterate over an iterable object (the set).

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for creating sets and performing union operations might include:

* Using the `Spread Operator` (`...`) with arrays: This approach can create new sets by spreading array elements into a new set.
* Utilizing `Promise.all()` and `Set.from()`: This approach involves using promises to iterate over an iterable object and then converting the results to a set.

However, these alternatives might introduce additional overhead or complexity compared to the original benchmark options.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:66.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/66.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 66 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
forEach	71.1 Ops/sec
for of	75.1 Ops/sec
forEach - no copy	166.9 Ops/sec
forOf - no copy	181.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Set union forEach vs forOf (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: forEach vs for of vs forEach - no copy vs forOf - no copy

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

forEach

for of

forEach - no copy

forOf - no copy

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):