Benchmark: loop comparision

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
for (let i = 1; i<100000; i++) {arr.push(i)}

Tests:

lodash.forEach
_.forEach(arr, function(v) {v+v})
native for-of
for (const a of arr) {a+a}
native for
for (let p = 0; p < arr.length; p++) { arr[p] + arr[p] }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.forEach
native for-of
native for

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help explain the benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares the performance of three different approaches: using `lodash.forEach`, a native `for...of` loop, and a traditional `for` loop.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is similar across all tests:
```javascript
var arr = [];
for (let i = 1; i<100000; i++) {arr.push(i)}
```
This creates an array of 100,000 elements and assigns it to the `arr` variable. The purpose of this code is to provide a constant input for the benchmark tests.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a reference to the `lodash.js` library:
```html
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js"></script>
```
This library is used by one of the benchmark test cases (`lodash.forEach`). We'll discuss this further below.

**Test Cases**

There are three individual test cases:

1. **`lodash.forEach`**: This test case uses the `forEach` method from the `lodash` library to iterate over the array and perform a simple calculation (`v + v`) on each element.
```javascript
_.forEach(arr, function(v) {v+v})
```
The purpose of this test is to demonstrate the performance of using a third-party library for iterating over arrays.

2. **Native `for...of` loop**: This test case uses a native JavaScript feature: the `for...of` loop to iterate over the array and perform the same calculation (`a + a`) on each element.
```javascript
for (const a of arr) {a+a}
```
The purpose of this test is to demonstrate the performance of using native JavaScript features for iterating over arrays.

3. **Traditional `for` loop**: This test case uses a traditional `for` loop with an index variable (`p`) to iterate over the array and perform the same calculation (`arr[p] + arr[p]`) on each element.
```javascript
for (let p = 0; p < arr.length; p++) { arr[p] + arr[p] }
```
The purpose of this test is to demonstrate the performance of using a traditional loop structure for iterating over arrays.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some general pros and cons of each approach:

* **`lodash.forEach`**:
	+ Pros: Easy to use, provides a simple way to iterate over arrays.
	+ Cons: Requires an additional library dependency, may not be optimized for performance.
* **Native `for...of` loop**:
	+ Pros: Optimized for performance, uses native JavaScript features, and is easy to read.
	+ Cons: May require more expertise to use correctly.
* **Traditional `for` loop**:
	+ Pros: Easy to understand, provides fine-grained control over the iteration process.
	+ Cons: May be less efficient than the other two options.

**Other Considerations**

When working with arrays in JavaScript, it's essential to consider the following:

* Memory usage: How will your approach affect memory allocation and deallocation?
* Cache locality: Will your approach optimize cache access patterns?

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches or libraries, here are a few options:

* **`forEach`**: The `forEach` method is similar to `lodash.forEach`, but it's built-in to JavaScript.
* **`map` and `reduce`**: These methods provide more flexible ways to process arrays, but may be overkill for simple iteration cases like this one.
* **Other libraries**: There are many other libraries available that provide optimized array iteration, such as `underscore.js` or `ramda`.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark and its different test cases!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/75.0.3770.100 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 75 on Mac OS X 10.13.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash.forEach	722.4 Ops/sec
native for-of	9932.9 Ops/sec
native for	39.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

loop comparision (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.forEach vs native for-of vs native for

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.forEach

native for-of

native for

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):