Benchmark: map vs foreach / function vs arrow/ simple vs complex

Script Preparation code:

   var arr = [];
    for (var i = 1000; i > 0; i--) {
      arr[i] = i;
    }
  
    function simple(i) {
      return (i).toString(2);
    }

    function complex(i) {
      return JSON.stringify({id: i, asdf: Math.sqrt(i ^ (1000-i))});
    }

Tests:

foreach simple function
arr.forEach(function (item){ simple(item) })
foreach simple arrow
arr.forEach(item => simple(item))
map simple function
arr.map(function (item){ simple(item) })
map simple arrow
arr.map(item => simple(item))
foreach complex function
arr.forEach(function (item){ complex(item) })
foreach complex arrow
arr.forEach(item => complex(item))
map complex function
arr.map(function (item){ complex(item) })
map complex arrow
arr.map(item => complex(item))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
foreach simple function
foreach simple arrow
map simple function
map simple arrow
foreach complex function
foreach complex arrow
map complex function
map complex arrow

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 world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of different approaches to iterate over an array: `forEach`, `map`, and two types of functions (simple and complex). We'll break down each aspect:

**Benchmark Definition**

The `Name` field is "map vs foreach / function vs arrow/ simple vs complex", indicating that this benchmark tests four main aspects:

1. Iteration using `foreach`
2. Iteration using `map`
3. Iteration using a plain function (`function`)
4. Iteration using an arrow function (`=>`)

**Options compared**

The test case compares different combinations of these options, creating 8 unique scenarios:

* `forEach simple function`: Using the `forEach` method with a simple function
* `forEach simple arrow`: Using the `forEach` method with an arrow function
* `map simple function`: Using the `map` method with a simple function
* `map simple arrow`: Using the `map` method with an arrow function
* `foreach complex function`: Using the `forEach` method with a complex function
* `foreach complex arrow`: Using the `forEach` method with an arrow function
* `map complex function`: Using the `map` method with a complex function
* `map complex arrow`: Using the `map` method with an arrow function

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each option:

1. **Plain Function (`function`)**: This approach is straightforward but may incur additional overhead due to the need for explicit function declarations.
	* Pros: Easy to understand, no special syntax required
	* Cons: May introduce unnecessary complexity, potential performance penalties
2. **Arrow Function (`=>`)**: Arrow functions are a concise way to define small functions, often used with `forEach`, `map`, and other array methods.
	* Pros: Compact syntax, eliminates the need for explicit function declarations
	* Cons: Limited scope, may not be as expressive as traditional functions
3. **Complex Function**: This approach involves using more complex logic within the iteration function, which can include calculations or data transformations.
	* Pros: Can handle more complex operations, potentially providing better performance for specific use cases
	* Cons: May introduce additional complexity, harder to read and maintain

**Library usage**

None of the provided benchmark test cases explicitly uses a JavaScript library. However, libraries like Lodash (which was popular before its deprecation) often provide optimized implementations of array methods, which could affect the results.

**Special JS features**

This benchmark doesn't explicitly use any special JavaScript features, such as async/await or Promises, which might impact performance in certain scenarios.

**Measuring Performance**

MeasureThat.net provides an ideal environment for testing performance differences between these iteration approaches. The results will likely reflect the specific optimization and overhead introduced by each option.

Keep in mind that microbenchmarking can be sensitive to various factors, including:

* Array size and data distribution
* System configuration and hardware
* Compiler or interpreter optimizations

These factors might influence the actual performance difference observed in this benchmark test case.

Related benchmarks:

map vs foreach / function vs arrow/ simple vs complex (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: foreach simple function vs foreach simple arrow vs map simple function vs map simple arrow vs foreach complex function vs foreach complex arrow vs map complex function vs map complex arrow

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

foreach simple function

foreach simple arrow

map simple function

map simple arrow

foreach complex function

foreach complex arrow

map complex function

map complex arrow

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):