Benchmark: for vs foreach vs some vs for..of vs for cached length different arrays no break

Script Preparation code:

var a = new Array(10000);

for(i=0; i<5000; i++){
    a[i] = ([1e7]+-1e3+-4e3+-8e3+-1e11).replace(/[018]/g, c => (c ^ crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(1))[0] & 15 >> c / 4).toString(16));
}
a[5000] = 1488;
for(i=5001; i<10000; i++){
    a[i] = ([1e7]+-1e3+-4e3+-8e3+-1e11).replace(/[018]/g, c => (c ^ crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(1))[0] & 15 >> c / 4).toString(16));
}

var b = new Array(10000);

for(i=0; i<5000; i++){
    b[i] = ([1e7]+-1e3+-4e3+-8e3+-1e11).replace(/[018]/g, c => (c ^ crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(1))[0] & 15 >> c / 4).toString(16));
}
b[5000] = 1488;
for(i=5001; i<10000; i++){
    b[i] = ([1e7]+-1e3+-4e3+-8e3+-1e11).replace(/[018]/g, c => (c ^ crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(1))[0] & 15 >> c / 4).toString(16));
}

var c = new Array(10000);

for(i=0; i<5000; i++){
    c[i] = ([1e7]+-1e3+-4e3+-8e3+-1e11).replace(/[018]/g, c => (c ^ crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(1))[0] & 15 >> c / 4).toString(16));
}
c[5000] = 1488;
for(i=5001; i<10000; i++){
    c[i] = ([1e7]+-1e3+-4e3+-8e3+-1e11).replace(/[018]/g, c => (c ^ crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(1))[0] & 15 >> c / 4).toString(16));
}

var d = new Array(10000);

for(i=0; i<5000; i++){
    d[i] = ([1e7]+-1e3+-4e3+-8e3+-1e11).replace(/[018]/g, c => (c ^ crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(1))[0] & 15 >> c / 4).toString(16));
}
d[5000] = 1488;
for(i=5001; i<10000; i++){
    d[i] = ([1e7]+-1e3+-4e3+-8e3+-1e11).replace(/[018]/g, c => (c ^ crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(1))[0] & 15 >> c / 4).toString(16));
}

var e = new Array(10000);

for(i=0; i<5000; i++){
    e[i] = ([1e7]+-1e3+-4e3+-8e3+-1e11).replace(/[018]/g, c => (c ^ crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(1))[0] & 15 >> c / 4).toString(16));
}
e[5000] = 1488;
for(i=5001; i<10000; i++){
    e[i] = ([1e7]+-1e3+-4e3+-8e3+-1e11).replace(/[018]/g, c => (c ^ crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(1))[0] & 15 >> c / 4).toString(16));
}

Tests:

for
var ahas1488 = false; for (var i = 0; i < a.length; i++) { if (a[i] === 1488) ahas1488 = true; }
for cached length
var bhas1488 = false; for (var i = 0, l=b.length; i < l; ++i) { if (b[i] === 1488) bhas1488 = true; }
some
var chas1488 = c.some(function(i) { return i === 1488; });
for..of
var dhas1488 = false; for (var i of d) { if (i === 1488) dhas1488 = true; }
foreach
var ehas1488 = false; e.forEach(function(i) { if (i === 1488) ehas1488 = true; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
for cached length
some
for..of
foreach

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 world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Purpose**
The benchmark measures the performance of different loop constructs in JavaScript: `for`, `for` with cached length, `some`, and `for...of`. The goal is to determine which loop construct is the most efficient.

**Loop Constructs**

1. **`for`**: A traditional loop that increments a counter until a condition is met.
2. **`for` with cached length**: A variation of the previous loop where the length of the array is stored in a variable, reducing the number of iterations needed to check for the desired value.
3. **`some`**: A loop that checks if at least one element in an array satisfies a certain condition.
4. **`for...of`**: A modern loop that iterates over an iterable object (like an array) without needing to specify the length.

**Performance Results**
The latest benchmark results show the following execution counts per second for each test case:

* `some`: 2844.90
* `for cached length`: 2315.93
* `foreach` ( likely a typo, but assumed to be `for...of` ): 1738.29
* `for`: 1388.83
* `for...of`: 596.42

**Performance Comparison**

The results suggest that:

* `some` is the fastest, possibly due to its concise syntax and optimized engine implementation.
* `for cached length` is slightly faster than `foreach`, indicating that storing the array length can improve performance.
* `for` is slower than all other options, likely due to its traditional loop structure.
* `for...of` is the slowest, possibly because it requires additional overhead for iteration.

**Implications**
These results highlight the importance of choosing the right loop construct for a specific task. In general, modern loops like `some` and `for...of` can be faster than traditional loops due to optimized engine implementations. However, in cases where array length is known, caching that value can lead to improved performance.

I hope this answer helps!

Related benchmarks:

for vs foreach vs some vs for..of vs for cached length different arrays no break (version: 0)

Compare loop performance

Comparing performance of: for vs for cached length vs some vs for..of vs foreach

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

for cached length

some

for..of

foreach

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):