Benchmark: Array looping - MeasureThat.net

Array looping (version: 0)

Finding out the fastest way to loop through an array

Comparing performance of: Simple for loop vs Simple for loop (reverse) vs Array.forEach vs for loop + Array.entries vs while + Array.entries vs enumerable for loop (order not important) vs enumerable for loop (order is respected) vs Array.map vs Array.filter vs while + Array.entries (condensed) vs for loop + Array.entries (condensed) vs Simple for loop (condensed) vs Instructionless for loop

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];

for( var cpt = 0; cpt < 1000; cpt++ ) {
  arr.push( Math.random() );
}

var someFn = function( item ) {
  return item * 3 + item / 5;
}

Tests:

Simple for loop
for( var i = 0, n = arr.length; i < n; i++ ) { someFn( arr[ i ] ); }
Simple for loop (reverse)
for( var i = arr.length; i > -1; i-- ) { someFn( arr[ i ] ); }
Array.forEach
arr.forEach( someFn );
for loop + Array.entries
for( var e = arr.entries(), n = e.next(); ! n.done; n = e.next() ) { someFn( n.value[ 1 ] ); }
while + Array.entries
var e = arr.entries(), n = e.next(); while( ! n.done ) { someFn( n.value[ 1 ] ); n = e.next(); }
enumerable for loop (order not important)
for( var i in arr ) { someFn( arr[ i ] ); }
enumerable for loop (order is respected)
for( r of arr ) { someFn( r ); }
Array.map
arr.map( someFn );
Array.filter
arr.filter( someFn );
while + Array.entries (condensed)
var e = arr.entries(), n; while( ! ( n = e.next() ).done ) { someFn( n.value[ 1 ] ); }
for loop + Array.entries (condensed)
for( var e = arr.entries(), n; ! (n = e.next()).done; ) { someFn( n.value[ 1 ] ); }
Simple for loop (condensed)
for( var i = 0, n = arr.length; i < n; ) { someFn( arr[ i++ ] ); }
Instructionless for loop
for( var i = 0, n = arr.length; i < n; someFn( arr[ i++ ] ) ) ;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Simple for loop
Simple for loop (reverse)
Array.forEach
for loop + Array.entries
while + Array.entries
enumerable for loop (order not important)
enumerable for loop (order is respected)
Array.map
Array.filter
while + Array.entries (condensed)
for loop + Array.entries (condensed)
Simple for loop (condensed)
Instructionless for loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Simple for loop	1031806.2 Ops/sec
Simple for loop (reverse)	579250.8 Ops/sec
Array.forEach	5261475.0 Ops/sec
for loop + Array.entries	280309.3 Ops/sec
while + Array.entries	251312.2 Ops/sec
enumerable for loop (order not important)	97078.9 Ops/sec
enumerable for loop (order is respected)	18883.7 Ops/sec
Array.map	727368.0 Ops/sec
Array.filter	469382.1 Ops/sec
while + Array.entries (condensed)	296458.6 Ops/sec
for loop + Array.entries (condensed)	297256.8 Ops/sec
Simple for loop (condensed)	991528.2 Ops/sec
Instructionless for loop	965656.7 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Related benchmarks: