Benchmark: lambdas-noinline

Script Preparation code:

var x = [];
for(i=0; i<1000; i++){
	x.push(i)
}

Tests:

lambda
let y = []; function justReturn(item) { return item } for(i=0; i<1000; i++){ y[i] = justReturn(x[i]) }
no lambda
let z = []; for(i=0; i<1000; i++){ z[i] = x[i] }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lambda
no lambda

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 llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark definition and results.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark is called "lambdas-noinline" and its purpose is to compare the performance of two different approaches for iterating over an array of 1000 elements. The name suggests that it's related to lambda functions, which are a type of anonymous function in JavaScript.

**Script Preparation Code:**

The preparation code creates an empty array `x` with 1000 elements, where each element is assigned an index value (e.g., `x[0] = 0`, `x[1] = 1`, ..., `x[999] = 999`).

**Individual Test Cases:**

There are two test cases:

1. **"lambda"**: This test case uses a lambda function (`justReturn`) to iterate over the array `x`. The lambda function takes an element from `x` and returns it. For each element, the test assigns the result of the lambda function to the corresponding index in another array `y`.
2. **"no lambda"**: This test case does not use a lambda function. Instead, it directly iterates over the array `x` using a traditional `for` loop and assigns each element to the corresponding index in another array `z`.

**Latest Benchmark Result:**

The benchmark result shows two tests:

1. The "no lambda" test ran at approximately 13764 executions per second.
2. The "lambda" test ran at approximately 14063 executions per second.

**What's being tested?**

In essence, this benchmark is testing the performance of two different approaches for iterating over an array of elements:

* Using a traditional `for` loop (`"no lambda"`): This approach creates a named function (in this case, none) to perform the iteration. The test assigns each element from `x` to the corresponding index in another array.
* Using a lambda function (`"lambda"`): This approach uses an anonymous function (a lambda) to perform the iteration. The test assigns the result of the lambda function to the corresponding index in another array.

**Pros and Cons:**

* Traditional `for` loop:
	+ Pros: Well-established, easy to understand, and efficient.
	+ Cons: May require more code for complex iterations or edge cases.
* Lambda function:
	+ Pros: Concise, expressive, and easy to use for simple iterations.
	+ Cons: May be less performant than traditional `for` loops due to overhead.

**Other considerations:**

* **Inlining**: The benchmark name "lambdas-noinline" suggests that the test is measuring the performance without inlining. Inlining can improve performance by eliminating function call overhead.
* **Library usage**: No libraries are used in this benchmark, so there's no need for additional explanations.
* **Special JS feature or syntax**: This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond lambda functions.

**Alternatives:**

If you're looking to optimize array iterations, consider using:

* Traditional `for` loops with traditional function definitions
* Lambda functions (especially for simple iterations)
* Modern array methods like `map()`, `filter()`, and `reduce()` (which may be more efficient than traditional `for` loops or lambda functions)

Related benchmarks:

lambdas-noinline (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lambda vs no lambda

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lambda

no lambda

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):