Benchmark: array iteration vs _.foreach vs map

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.11/lodash.core.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var array = ['a', 'b', 'c']

Tests:

_.each
_.forEach(array, (value, index) => { console.log(value) })
forEach
array.forEach((value, index) => { console.log(value) })
map
array.map((value, index) => { console.log(value) })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.each
forEach
map

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.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case that compares three different approaches for iterating over an array:

1. `array.forEach()`
2. `_` (Lodash) `.forEach()` function
3. `_.map()` function

These approaches are compared in terms of execution speed, which is measured in executions per second.

**Options being compared**

The test case uses the following options:

* `array.forEach()`: A built-in JavaScript method for iterating over an array.
* `_` (Lodash) `.forEach()` function: A utility function provided by the Lodash library that allows iterating over arrays and objects. The underscore symbol "_" is used to denote the Lodash namespace.
* `_.map()` function: Another utility function from the Lodash library that applies a transformation function to each element of an array.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

1. **array.forEach()**:
	* Pros:
		+ Built-in JavaScript method, so no external dependencies.
		+ Simple and intuitive syntax.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be as efficient as other approaches, especially for large arrays.
2. **_ (Lodash) .forEach()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a convenient way to iterate over arrays without having to implement the loop yourself.
		+ Can be useful when working with complex data structures that require additional setup.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an external dependency (the Lodash library).
		+ May have performance overhead due to the need for importing and initializing the library.
3. **_.map()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a convenient way to transform arrays while iterating over them.
		+ Can be useful when working with data that requires both iteration and transformation.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an external dependency (the Lodash library).
		+ May have performance overhead due to the need for importing and initializing the library.

**Library usage**

The test case uses the Lodash library, which provides the `_` namespace. The `forEach()` function is a utility function within this namespace that allows iterating over arrays and objects.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark test case.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to iterate over arrays, here are a few options:

* Using `for` loops with traditional indexing (`array[i] = ...`)
* Using `while` loops with traditional indexing (`let i = 0; while (i < array.length) { ... }`)
* Using modern JavaScript features like `for...of` loops or `forEach()` with custom callback functions.
* Using third-party libraries like jQuery, which provides a similar API to Lodash's `_`.

Keep in mind that each approach has its own trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability. The choice of iteration method depends on the specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

array iteration vs _.foreach vs map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.each vs forEach vs map

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.each

forEach

map

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):