Benchmark: for loop vs. lodash range foreach

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/2.4.1/lodash.js"></script>

Tests:

for
var x = 0; for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { x++; }
lodash range foreach
var x = 0; _.range(10000).forEach(function (i) { x++; });
array foreach
var x = 0; Array(10000).forEach(function (i) { x++; });
array lodash foreach
var x = 0; _.forEach(Array(10000), function (i) { x++; });
lodash range lodash foreach
var x = 0; _.forEach(_.range(10000), function (i) { x++; });

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 8 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 8 runs

for

226K/s

array foreach

77K/s

array lodash foreach

39K/s

lodash range foreach

37K/s

lodash range lodash foreach

35K/s

Fastest: for (6.4x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ for: 226,302 ops/sec
• array foreach: 76,783 ops/sec
• array lodash foreach: 39,403 ops/sec
• lodash range foreach: 37,354 ops/sec
• lodash range lodash foreach: 35,140 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
lodash range foreach
array foreach
array lodash foreach
lodash range lodash foreach

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:143.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/143.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 143 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

for

86K/s

array foreach

20K/s

array lodash foreach

11K/s

lodash range foreach

10K/s

lodash range lodash foreach

8K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ for	86,493 Ops/sec
array foreach	20,152 Ops/sec
array lodash foreach	11,029 Ops/sec
lodash range foreach	9,783 Ops/sec
lodash range lodash foreach	8,147 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into explaining the benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents a specific benchmark, which compares different approaches for iterating over arrays in JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares four options:

1. **Native For Loop**: A traditional `for` loop used with an array.
2. **Lodash Range ForEach**: Using the `lodash` library's `range()` function to create an array and then using `forEach()` to iterate over it.
3. **Array Foreach**: Using the `Array.prototype.forEach()` method to iterate over the array.
4. **Lodash Array ForEach** (also known as Lodash Range Lodash ForEach): Similar to the previous option, but uses `_` as a namespace alias for Lodash and then calls `forEach()` with `_.range(10000)`.
5. **Array Lodash Foreach**: A variation of the previous option, where the iteration is performed using the `Array.prototype.forEach()` method.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Native For Loop**: Simple, efficient, and widely supported. However, it may not be as concise or readable.
* **Lodash Range ForEach**: Provides a more readable and concise way to iterate over an array using `lodash`. However, it requires including an external library.
* **Array Foreach**: A built-in method in JavaScript that is easy to use and efficient. It's also a good option when you don't want to include external libraries.
* **Lodash Array ForEach** (and **Array Lodash Foreach**): These options are similar to the previous two, but require including an external library.

In terms of performance, the native `for` loop is usually the fastest, followed closely by `Array.prototype.forEach()`. The `lodash` versions tend to be slower due to the overhead of creating and disposing of temporary objects.

**Other Considerations**

* **Library Overhead**: Using external libraries like Lodash can introduce additional overhead, which may not be desirable in performance-critical code.
* **Readability**: Some developers may find the `lodash` approach more readable than traditional loops or array methods.
* **Browser Support**: The benchmark tests are run on Mobile Safari 17, which means that some features might not be supported in other browsers.

**Test Case Analysis**

The test cases are designed to compare the performance of each approach. By comparing the executions per second (EPS) value for each test case, we can see which approach is faster. In this benchmark, `Array Foreach` and the native `for` loop seem to be the fastest, while `lodash` versions are slower.

Overall, the choice of iteration method depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

for loop vs. lodash range foreach (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `for vs lodash range foreach vs array foreach vs array lodash foreach vs lodash range lodash foreach`

Created: 9 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

for

lodash range foreach

array foreach

array lodash foreach

lodash range lodash foreach

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 8 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 8 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

for loop vs. lodash range foreach (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: for vs lodash range foreach vs array foreach vs array lodash foreach vs lodash range lodash foreach

Created: 9 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

for

lodash range foreach

array foreach

array lodash foreach

lodash range lodash foreach

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 8 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 8 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `for vs lodash range foreach vs array foreach vs array lodash foreach vs lodash range lodash foreach`