Benchmark: lodash forEach vs for i loop12

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var values = [{a: 30310}, {b: 100303}, {c: 3040494}]

Tests:

lodash.forEach
var count = 0; _.forEach(values, function(v,i) { if (v.a != null) { count++; } })
native
var count = 0; for (let v of values) { if (v.a !== null) { count++; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.forEach
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: using `_.forEach()` from the Lodash library and using a traditional `for` loop (also known as a "native" loop). The goal is to measure which approach is faster for iterating over an array of objects.

**Lodash _.forEach() Approach**

*   **Library:** Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and more.
*   **Purpose:** In this benchmark, Lodash's `_.forEach()` function is used to iterate over the `values` array. The callback function passed to `_.forEach()` increments a counter (`count`) whenever it encounters an object with a non-null value on the `a` property.

**Native Approach**

*   **Traditional Loop:** This approach uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the `values` array. Inside the loop, the code checks if each object has a non-null value on the `a` property and increments a counter (`count`) if true.
*   **Pros:**
    *   More control over iteration logic
    *   Generally faster than using a library function like Lodash's `_.forEach()`
*   **Cons:**
    *   More verbose code compared to using a library function
    *   Requires manual memory management for array access

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

Besides the two approaches shown, other alternatives could be:

*   Using `Array.prototype.forEach()`: This is another built-in method for iterating over an array. While similar to Lodash's `_.forEach()` function, it might have different performance characteristics due to its implementation.
*   Using a `for` loop with an index variable: Similar to the native approach, this would involve manually incrementing an index variable and checking the value of each object on the array.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show that:

*   The "native" approach outperforms the Lodash `_.forEach()` function, with a higher number of executions per second.
*   Chrome 76 performs slightly better than any other browser, indicating platform-specific optimizations or performance characteristics.

Keep in mind that these results might vary depending on the specific test environment and system configuration.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/76.0.3809.132 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 76 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash.forEach	2895822.8 Ops/sec
native	10442179.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash forEach vs for i loop12 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.forEach vs native

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.forEach

native

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):