Benchmark: Looptest123 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

// Create an array of 1000 random intergers between 1 and 10000
var arrRandom = [];
for(var intCtr=0; intCtr<1000; intCtr++) {
  arrRandom.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.floor(10000)));
}

function reduceCallback(accum, curr) {
	return accum+curr;
}

function doRedeuce(pArray) {
	return pArray.reduce(reduceCallback);
}
function doLoop(pArray) {
	var accum = 0;
	for(var intCtr=0; intCtr<pArray.length; intCtr++) {
		accum += pArray[intCtr];
	}
	return accum;
}

function doForOfLoop(pArray) {
	var accum = 0;
	for(const item of pArray) {
		accum += item;
	}
	return accum;
}
function doForEach(pArray) {
	var accum = 0;
	pArray.forEach(function(item) {
		accum += item;
	});
}

Tests:

reduce
var redeuceResult=0; redeuceResult = doRedeuce(arrRandom);
for loop
var loopResult=0; loopResult = doLoop(arrRandom);
forEach
var forEachResult=0 forEachResult = doForEach(arrRandom)
forOf
var forEachResult=0 forEachResult = doForOfLoop(arrRandom)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
reduce
for loop
forEach
forOf

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 break down what is being tested on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition provides a script and a description of the task to be performed. In this case, it creates an array `arrRandom` with 1000 random integers between 1 and 10,000. The script then defines four functions:

* `reduceCallback`: takes two arguments, accumulates them, and returns the result.
* `doRedeuce`: uses the `reduce` function (a built-in JavaScript method) to apply `reduceCallback` to the array.
* `doLoop`: iterates over the array using a traditional for loop, accumulating the values in a variable `accum`.
* `doForOfLoop`: uses the `for...of` loop syntax to iterate over the array, accumulating the values in a variable `accum`.
* `doForEach`: uses the `forEach` method (a built-in JavaScript method) to iterate over the array, accumulating the values in a variable `accum`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests four different approaches:

1. `reduce`
2. `for loop` (traditional for loop)
3. `forOf` (for...of loop syntax)
4. `forEach` (forEach method)

These options are being compared to determine which one is the fastest.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief summary:

1. **reduce**: This approach uses the built-in `reduce` method, which is a concise way to perform cumulative operations on arrays. It's likely to be the fastest since it's optimized by the browser.
2. **for loop**: A traditional for loop is straightforward and easy to understand but can be slower than other approaches since it requires manual indexing and iteration.
3. **forOf** loop: The `for...of` loop syntax is a newer way of iterating over arrays, which provides better performance and readability compared to traditional for loops.
4. **forEach**: The `forEach` method is another built-in JavaScript method that allows iterating over arrays. It's similar to `reduce`, but without the cumulative operation.

**Library/Functionality**

In this case, no external libraries are required or used beyond the standard JavaScript library (ECMAScript).

No special JavaScript features or syntax are being tested in this benchmark except for:

* ForOf loop syntax
* Built-in methods like reduce() and forEach()

All other code uses only built-in JavaScript functions.

**Alternatives**

MeasureThat.net provides a range of alternatives to test different programming scenarios. Some popular alternatives include:

* jsBench: A high-performance benchmarking tool for JavaScript.
* Benchmark.js: A lightweight, customizable benchmarking library for JavaScript.
* Microbenchmarking tools like speedtest.net or benchmark.garden

Related benchmarks:

Looptest123 (version: 0)

A test summing 1000 random numbers, 1 - 10000

Comparing performance of: reduce vs for loop vs forEach vs forOf

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

reduce

for loop

forEach

forOf

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):