Benchmark: For loop vs Index Of

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
var count = 1000;
for(var i = 0; i<count; i++)
{
  arr.push(i);
}

Tests:

for loop
function indexOfFor(obj, list) { var i; for (i = 0; i < list.length; i++) { if (list[i] === obj) { return i; } } return -1; }; indexOfFor(550, arr);
indexOf
arr.indexOf(550, arr);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for loop
indexOf

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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what is tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark definition provides two options for testing:

1. **For loop**: The script uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over an array and check if a specific element exists.
2. **indexOf**: This option uses the built-in `Array.prototype.indexOf()` method, which is designed to find the index of the first occurrence of a specified value within an array.

**Pros and Cons**

**For Loop:**

Pros:

* More control over the iteration process
* Can be optimized for specific use cases (e.g., array bounds checking)
* Often preferred in low-level or performance-critical code

Cons:

* Less readable and maintainable due to the explicit loop structure
* May lead to off-by-one errors or array indices out of bounds issues if not handled carefully

**indexOf:**

Pros:

* More concise and readable, as it abstracts away the iteration process
* Built-in functionality, so no extra maintenance is required
* Typically faster than a custom `for` loop implementation (especially for large arrays)

Cons:

* Less control over the iteration process
* May lead to performance issues if used with very large or sparse arrays
* Can be slower due to the overhead of the `indexOf()` method itself

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark also takes into account the following factors:

* **Array size**: The script creates an array of length 1000, which is a relatively small to medium-sized array. This might not represent the full range of possible array sizes.
* **Loop iteration variable scope**: The `for` loop uses a local variable `i`, while `indexOf()` returns the index without creating a new variable. This could affect performance depending on the JavaScript engine's handling of variable scoping.
* **Method calls vs loops**: `indexOf()` makes an additional method call, which might incur overhead due to the function call and return operations.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned or used besides the built-in `Array.prototype.indexOf()`. However, if we consider external dependencies like:

* The JavaScript engine (e.g., V8 in Chrome)
* Browser-specific optimizations or patches

Keep in mind that these aspects might not be directly represented in the provided benchmark definition.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JS feature or syntax used explicitly in this benchmark, but it's worth noting that:

* ES6+ features (like `let` and `const`) are generally supported by modern JavaScript engines.
* If the benchmark were modified to use a newer language construct (e.g., arrow functions), it could potentially introduce differences in performance.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to create an alternative benchmark, consider exploring other approaches:

1. **Array.prototype.find()**: This method returns the first element that satisfies the provided condition, which might be faster than `indexOf()` for arrays with a single unique value.
2. **Native WebAssembly support**: If available, using WebAssembly (WASM) could potentially offer better performance due to its low-level optimization capabilities and lack of language-specific overhead.
3. **Different data structures**: Experimenting with other data structures like linked lists or binary search trees might demonstrate the trade-offs between array-based iteration and more complex data structure implementations.

Feel free to ask if you have further questions or would like me to elaborate on any aspect!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for loop	1326948.4 Ops/sec
indexOf	26695.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

For loop vs Index Of (version: 0)

save length of the array in the variable vs get it the loop

Comparing performance of: for loop vs indexOf

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for loop

indexOf

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):