Benchmark: array iteration vs _.each vs map vs set iteration

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.11/lodash.core.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var array = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h', 'i', 'j', 'k', 'l', 'm', 'n', 'o', 'p', 'q', 'r', 's', 't', 'u', 'v', 'w', 'x', 'y', 'z']
var set = new Set(array)

Tests:

_.each
_.each(array, (value, index) => { console.log(value) })
forEach
array.forEach((value, index) => { console.log(value) })
map
array.map((value, index) => { console.log(value) })
set forEach
set.forEach((value, index) => { console.log(value) })
set -> array _.each
_.each([...set], (value, index) => { console.log(value) })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.each
forEach
map
set forEach
set -> array _.each

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of different methods to iterate over an array and a Set in JavaScript:

1. `_.each` (from the Lodash library)
2. `forEach`
3. `map`
4. `set.forEach`
5. `set -> array _.each`

The goal is to compare the execution speed of these methods.

**Options Comparison**

Here's a breakdown of each option:

1. **`.each` (Lodash)**:
	* Pros: Convenient and concise syntax, suitable for simple iteration.
	* Cons: May incur overhead due to Lodash's dependency on a library.
2. `forEach`:
	* Pros: Part of the native JavaScript API, no external dependencies.
	* Cons: Less convenient syntax compared to `.each`, may require more boilerplate code.
3. `map`:
	* Pros: Returns a new array, allowing for transformation and filtering.
	* Cons: May incur additional overhead due to creating a new array, not suitable for simple iteration.
4. `set.forEach`:
	* Pros: Part of the native JavaScript API, no external dependencies.
	* Cons: Only available on modern browsers that support Sets, may require additional setup for older browsers.
5. `set -> array _.each`:
	* Pros: Combines the benefits of using a Set and leveraging `.each`.
	* Cons: May incur additional overhead due to converting the Set to an array.

**Libraries and Special Features**

In this benchmark, only the Lodash library is used (`_.each`). There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used beyond the standard APIs.

**Other Considerations**

When writing performance benchmarks like this one:

* **Use a representative dataset**: The provided `array` and `set` variables should give a good representation of typical iteration scenarios.
* **Test on multiple devices and browsers**: Including multiple platforms (e.g., Chrome Mobile 87, Android 7.0) helps ensure the results are representative and not browser-specific.
* **Use a consistent execution environment**: Make sure the benchmarking process is performed in a controlled environment to minimize external factors affecting performance.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative methods or libraries for iteration:

* For `forEach`, you can also use `for...of` loops, which are more concise and efficient.
* For `map`, consider using `Array.prototype.reduce()` instead of creating a new array.
* For Sets, look into libraries like `fast-set` (a faster implementation of the native Set API) or `set` polyfills for older browsers.

These alternatives can provide different trade-offs in terms of performance, convenience, and feature set.

Related benchmarks:

array iteration vs _.each vs map vs set iteration (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.each vs forEach vs map vs set forEach vs set -> array _.each

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

_.each

forEach

map

set forEach

set -> array _.each

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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