Benchmark: Looping through massive array

Looping through massive array (version: 0)

Based on https://blogs.oracle.com/greimer/entry/best_way_to_code_a

Comparing performance of: Basic for loop vs For loop but caching the length vs While loop that imitates a for loop vs While loop that imitates a for loop caching len vs While loop in reverse simplifying the test vs While looping by popping values vs for ... in loop vs for ... in loop with integer test vs For loop testing on existence rather than lengt vs For loop testing on existence plus array lookup vs For testing on existence rather than length array vs For reference vs Array.forEach() native implementation. vs For reference against forEach()

Created: 9 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Script Preparation code:

var arr = new Array(99999);

Tests:

Basic for loop
for (var i=0; i<arr.length; i++) {}
For loop but caching the length
for (var i=0, len=arr.length; i<len; i++) {}
While loop that imitates a for loop
var i = 0; while (i<arr.length) { i++; }
While loop that imitates a for loop caching len
var i=0, len=arr.length; while (i<len) { i++; }
While loop in reverse simplifying the test
var i = arr.length; while (i--) {}
While looping by popping values
var x; while (x = arr.pop()) {}
for ... in loop
for (var i in arr) {}
for ... in loop with integer test
var isInt = /(\^[0-9]$)|(\^[1-9][0-9]+$)/; for (var i in arr) { if(!isInt.test(i)){continue;} }
For loop testing on existence rather than lengt
for (var i=0; arr[i]; i++) {}
For loop testing on existence plus array lookup
for (var i=0; arr[i]; i++) { var x = arr[i]; }
For testing on existence rather than length array
for (var i=0, x; x = arr[i++];) {}
For reference
for (var i=0, len=arr.length; i<len; i++) { var x = arr[i]; }
Array.forEach() native implementation.
arr.forEach(function(x){});
For reference against forEach()
var f=function(x){}; for (var i=0, len=arr.length; i<len; i++) { f(arr[i]); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Basic for loop
For loop but caching the length
While loop that imitates a for loop
While loop that imitates a for loop caching len
While loop in reverse simplifying the test
While looping by popping values
for ... in loop
for ... in loop with integer test
For loop testing on existence rather than lengt
For loop testing on existence plus array lookup
For testing on existence rather than length array
For reference
Array.forEach() native implementation.
For reference against 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 get to the interesting part!

The provided data appears to be a collection of test results, likely from an automated testing framework. The tests seem to focus on various iteration mechanisms in programming languages.

Here are some observations and insights:

1. **DevicePlatform**: All tests run on Windows desktop devices with Chrome 67.
2. **OperatingSystem**: The operating system is Windows.
3. **ExecutionsPerSecond**: This metric provides insight into the performance of each test, likely indicating how quickly the iteration mechanism executes.

Some interesting points to consider:

* The highest execution rate (7491631.0) was achieved by the `Array.forEach()` native implementation test.
* The lowest execution rates were recorded for tests using a "While" loop or "Basic for loop", suggesting that these iterations may be less efficient than others.

These observations are based on a limited dataset and should be taken with caution. More data would be necessary to draw more definitive conclusions about the performance of each iteration mechanism.

Related benchmarks: