Benchmark: native built-in filter map function vs native logic for filter, map

Script Preparation code:

var numbers = [10, 40, 230, 15, 18, 51, 1221, 24, 36, 28, 10, 6, 8, 7, 55, 89, 256, 102, 1, 23, 41, 38, 7, 2, 5, 9, 60]
var input = []
Array(10).forEach(_ => input.push(...numbers))

Tests:

native built-in filter
input.filter(i => i > 10).map(x => x * x)
native logic for filter, map
let result = [] for (let x in input) { if (x > 10) result.push(x) }
using forEach
let result = [] input.forEach(x => { if (x > 10) result.push(x) })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native built-in filter
native logic for filter, map
using forEach

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data for MeasureThat.net, a platform that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Overview**

The benchmark tests three approaches for filtering and mapping an array of numbers:

1. Native built-in `filter` and `map` functions
2. Native logic using `for...in` loops
3. Using the `forEach` method

**Options Compared**

* **Native Built-in `filter` and `map` Functions**: These are built-in methods in JavaScript that can be used to filter and map arrays.
	+ Pros: Efficient, concise, and easy to use. The native implementation is optimized for performance by the V8 engine (used by Chrome).
	+ Cons: Limited control over iteration order, potential issues with array length or type mismatches.
* **Native Logic using `for...in` Loops**: This approach uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array and apply filtering and mapping logic manually.
	+ Pros: Gives more control over iteration order and allows for explicit handling of array length or type mismatches.
	+ Cons: Can be less efficient, longer code, and may not be as readable.
* **Using `forEach` Method**: This approach uses the `forEach` method to iterate over the array and apply filtering and mapping logic using an arrow function.
	+ Pros: Easy to read, concise, and flexible. The `forEach` method provides more control over iteration order compared to traditional loops.
	+ Cons: May not be as efficient as native built-in methods or traditional loops.

**Library Usage**

None of the benchmark test cases explicitly use a JavaScript library.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark (e.g., ES6 modules, async/await).

**Other Alternatives**

Other alternatives for filtering and mapping arrays include:

* Using `reduce` method
* Implementing custom iteration logic using `while` loops or other control structures
* Utilizing libraries like Lodash or Ramda for functional programming approaches

In summary, the benchmark tests three common approaches for filtering and mapping arrays in JavaScript: native built-in methods (`filter` and `map`), native logic with `for...in` loops, and using the `forEach` method. The results provide a comparison of their performance on the same input data.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.132 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 80 on Mac OS X 10.15.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
native built-in filter	10649815.0 Ops/sec
native logic for filter, map	12213854.0 Ops/sec
using forEach	9955179.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

native built-in filter map function vs native logic for filter, map (version: 0)

native built-in filter map function vs native logic for filter, map

Comparing performance of: native built-in filter vs native logic for filter, map vs using forEach

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

native built-in filter

native logic for filter, map

using forEach

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):