Benchmark: double filter vs foreach2

Script Preparation code:


var arr = [];
for(i=0; i<10000; i++){
  Math.random() > .5 ? arr.push({is_group: true}) : arr.push({is_group: false})
}

Tests:

filter
const a = arr.filter(i => i.is_group) const b = arr.filter(i => !i.is_group)
forEach
const a = []; const b = []; arr.forEach(i => { if (i.is_group) { a.push(i) } else { b.push(i) } })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
filter
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 break down what's being tested in the provided JSON.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark defines two test cases: `double filter vs foreach2`. The script preparation code initializes an array `arr` with 10,000 elements, where each element has a random property `is_group` set to either `true` or `false`.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Filter**: The first test case uses the `filter()` method to create two arrays: `a` and `b`. `a` contains only the elements with `is_group` set to `true`, while `b` contains only the elements with `is_group` set to `false`.
2. **Foreach**: The second test case uses the `forEach()` method to iterate over the array `arr` and push elements into two separate arrays: `a` and `b`. If an element's `is_group` property is `true`, it's pushed into `a`; otherwise, it's pushed into `b`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Filter**:
	* Pros:
		+ Efficient use of array methods, which are optimized by JavaScript engines.
		+ Reduces the need for explicit looping.
	* Cons:
		+ May require additional memory allocation for the intermediate arrays.
2. **Foreach**:
	* Pros:
		+ Allows for more control over the iteration process.
		+ Can be beneficial when working with large datasets, as it avoids creating intermediate arrays.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires explicit looping and array manipulation.
		+ May be slower than using `filter()` due to the overhead of loop logic.

**Library**

In this benchmark, no specific library is used. The `Array.prototype.filter()` method and `Array.prototype.forEach()` method are built-in JavaScript methods.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that modern JavaScript engines often provide additional features and optimizations for array methods like `filter()` and `forEach()`, which may affect their performance characteristics.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to this benchmark, consider the following:

* Using `map()` instead of `filter()` or `forEach()`: This would involve creating a new array with transformed elements.
* Using a library like Lodash (which provides a `filterBy()` method) or another utility library that offers a similar functionality to `filter()` and `forEach()`.
* Implementing a custom loop-based solution using traditional JavaScript syntax.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not provide the same level of optimization as the built-in array methods used in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

double filter vs foreach2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: filter vs forEach

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

filter

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):