Benchmark: array math.max vs for loop

array math.max vs for loop (version: 1)

compare finding the maximum value with math.max using .apply & using the spread (...) operator, vs a basic for loop with an if statement, & finally a basic foor loop using length caching

Comparing performance of: `Math.max.apply vs Math.max with spread vs basic for loop vs for loop length caching`

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
var max = -Infinity;
for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { 
  arr.push(Math.random() * i);
}

Tests:

Math.max.apply
max = Math.max.apply(Math, arr);
Math.max with spread
max = Math.max(...arr);
basic for loop
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) { if (arr[i] > max) { max = arr[i]; } }
for loop length caching
for (let i = 0, len = arr.length; i < len; i++) { if (arr[i] > max) { max = arr[i]; } }

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 81 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 56 runs

Math.max.apply

907K/s

Math.max with spread

222K/s

for loop length caching

13K/s

basic for loop

9K/s

Fastest: Math.max.apply (104.1x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Math.max.apply: 906,753 ops/sec
• Math.max with spread: 222,231 ops/sec
• for loop length caching: 12,958 ops/sec
• basic for loop: 8,712 ops/sec

Firefox 18 runs

for loop length caching

1.2M/s

basic for loop

1.1M/s

Math.max with spread

204K/s

Math.max.apply

203K/s

Fastest: for loop length caching (5.8x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ for loop length caching: 1,184,136 ops/sec
• basic for loop: 1,097,647 ops/sec
• Math.max with spread: 203,701 ops/sec
• Math.max.apply: 202,615 ops/sec

Mobile Results:

Safari 7 runs

Math.max.apply

477K/s

Math.max with spread

318K/s

for loop length caching

18K/s

basic for loop

13K/s

Fastest: Math.max.apply (37.4x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Math.max.apply: 477,035 ops/sec
• Math.max with spread: 318,327 ops/sec
• for loop length caching: 18,431 ops/sec
• basic for loop: 12,740 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
Math.max.apply
Math.max with spread
basic for loop
for loop length caching

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

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

Browser/OS: Firefox 143 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

for loop length caching

1.2M/s

basic for loop

821K/s

Math.max with spread

289K/s

Math.max.apply

273K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ for loop length caching	1,197,844 Ops/sec
basic for loop	821,205 Ops/sec
Math.max with spread	288,852 Ops/sec
Math.max.apply	273,224 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares three different approaches for finding the maximum value in an array:

1. Using `Math.max.apply()` with the first argument being `Math`.
2. Using the spread operator (`...`) to pass the array elements to `Math.max()`.
3. A basic for loop using an if statement.
4. An optimized version of the basic for loop that caches the length of the array, which reduces the number of iterations.

**Options Compared:**

* **Math.max.apply()**: This method takes an optional argument (the second argument in this case) which is used to specify a context or scope for the `max` function. In this case, it's being used with `Math` as the context.
* **Math.max with spread (`...`) operator**: This approach uses the spread operator to pass the array elements as separate arguments to `Math.max()`.
* **Basic for loop**: A traditional for loop that iterates over the array and updates the maximum value using an if statement.
* **For loop length caching**: An optimized version of the basic for loop that caches the length of the array, reducing the number of iterations.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Math.max.apply()**:
	+ Pros: This approach is concise and easy to read. It's also a more explicit way to specify the context for the `max` function.
	+ Cons: It may have a slight performance overhead due to the method call and argument passing.
* **Math.max with spread (`...`) operator**:
	+ Pros: This approach is concise and easy to read, similar to `Math.max.apply()`. It's also a modern and efficient way to pass arguments to functions.
	+ Cons: Some older browsers or environments may not support the spread operator, which could lead to compatibility issues.
* **Basic for loop**:
	+ Pros: This approach is simple and easy to understand. It doesn't require any special libraries or features.
	+ Cons: It can be less concise than the other two approaches and may have a higher overhead due to the repeated array accesses and comparisons.
* **For loop length caching**:
	+ Pros: This optimized version of the basic for loop reduces the number of iterations, making it faster. However, it's still a relatively simple approach compared to `Math.max.apply()` or `Math.max` with spread (`...`) operator.
	+ Cons: It requires knowledge of array caching and may not be as concise or readable as the other approaches.

**Other Considerations:**

* **Library usage**: The benchmark doesn't use any external libraries, which is good for simplicity and compatibility reasons. However, some libraries (e.g., Lodash) might provide optimized implementations for these operations that could affect the results.
* **Special JS features or syntax**: None of the options require special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the basic ones.

**Alternatives:**

If you want to explore alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* **Built-in `reduce()` method**: You can use the `reduce()` method with an initial value (e.g., `-Infinity`) and a callback function that updates the maximum value. This approach is concise and efficient but might not be as readable as the other options.
* **`Math.max` with a custom comparison function**: You can pass a custom comparison function to `Math.max()` instead of using the spread operator or an explicit context. This approach is more flexible but may have performance implications.

Keep in mind that these alternatives are just suggestions, and it's essential to consider your specific use case, performance requirements, and compatibility needs before choosing an approach.

array math.max vs for loop (version: 1)

compare finding the maximum value with math.max using .apply & using the spread (...) operator, vs a basic for loop with an if statement, & finally a basic foor loop using length caching

Comparing performance of: Math.max.apply vs Math.max with spread vs basic for loop vs for loop length caching

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Math.max.apply

Math.max with spread

basic for loop

for loop length caching

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 81 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 56 runs

Firefox 18 runs

Mobile Results:

Safari 7 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: `Math.max.apply vs Math.max with spread vs basic for loop vs for loop length caching`