Benchmark: test map vs for each

Script Preparation code:

 const lista = [{custType: 'titular'},{custType: 'cotitular'}];
    const objecta = {};

Tests:

map
const lista = [{custType: 'titular'},{custType: 'cotitular'}]; const objecta = {}; lista.map((itemList) => {return objecta[itemList.custType] = {};});
forEach
const lista = [{custType: 'titular'},{custType: 'cotitular'}]; const objecta = {}; lista.forEach(itemList => objecta[itemList.custType] = {});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
map
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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches: `map()` and `forEach()`. The script preparation code creates an array `lista` with two objects, each containing a `custType` property. An empty object `objecta` is also created.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **`map()`**: This method applies a provided function to each element of the array and returns a new array with the results.
2. **`forEach()`**: This method executes a callback function once for each element in an array, without returning any value.

**Pros and Cons**

* `map()`:
	+ Pros: More efficient for creating a new array with transformed data.
	+ Cons: Can be slower if used to modify the original array (although this is not the case here).
* `forEach()`:
	+ Pros: Often more convenient when modifying the original array or performing side effects.
	+ Cons: Returns no value, which can make it harder to work with in certain situations.

**Library**

None are explicitly mentioned, but `map()` and `forEach()` are built-in JavaScript methods. However, if we consider the context of modern web development, it's common to use libraries like jQuery or Lodash, which provide additional functionality for manipulating arrays. In this case, the benchmark only tests the native `map()` and `forEach()` methods.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The code snippets are straightforward and rely on built-in methods.

**Other Alternatives**

For similar workloads, other alternatives to `map()` and `forEach()` might include:

* Using a custom loop with an index variable
* Utilizing libraries like jQuery's `.each()` method or Lodash's `_map()` function
* Employing parallel processing or multi-threading techniques (if the workload can be scaled horizontally)

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates an array `lista` and an empty object `objecta`, which are used as input for both `map()` and `forEach()`. This allows us to compare the performance of these two methods on a simple, controlled workload.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are only two test cases:

1. **`map()`**: The benchmark definition includes a code snippet that uses `map()` to create an object with the same structure as `objecta`, but with nested objects created for each `custType`.
2. **`forEach()`**: A similar code snippet is provided, using `forEach()` to achieve the same result.

Both test cases are designed to be simple and representative of common use cases where these methods would be used.

Related benchmarks:

test map vs for each (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: map vs forEach

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

map

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):