Benchmark: Performance of JavaScript .forEach, for in v3

Script Preparation code:

function generateTestArray() {
  const result = [];
  for (let i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i) {
    result.push({
      a: i,
      b: i / 2,
      r: 0,
    });
  }
  return result;
}

Tests:

.forEach destructured
const array = generateTestArray(); const newMap = new Map(); array.forEach(({a, b}) => { newMap.set(a, b); }); const foo = [...newMap.entries()];
for..of destructured
const array = generateTestArray(); const newMap = new Map(); for(const {a, b} of array) { newMap.set(a, b); } const foo = [...newMap.entries()];
.forEach
const array = generateTestArray(); const newMap = new Map(); array.forEach((x) => { const {a, b} = x; newMap.set(a, b); }); const foo = [...newMap.entries()];
for..of
const array = generateTestArray(); const newMap = new Map(); for(const x of array) { const {a, b} = x; newMap.set(a, b); } const foo = [...newMap.entries()];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
.forEach destructured
for..of destructured
.forEach
for..of

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/128.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 128 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

.forEach

6/s

for..of destructured

6/s

for..of

6/s

.forEach destructured

6/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ .forEach	6 Ops/sec
for..of destructured	6 Ops/sec
for..of	6 Ops/sec
.forEach destructured	6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case created using MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares the performance of three different approaches for iterating over an array and mapping its elements to a new Map.

**Options Compared**

The options compared in this benchmark are:

1. `.forEach` with destructuring (`.forEach destructured`)
2. `for...of` with destructuring ( `for..of destructured` )
3. `.forEach` without destructuring (`.forEach`)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. `.forEach` with destructuring:
	* Pros: Easy to use, no need for explicit array indices or type checking.
	* Cons: Can be slower than other approaches due to the creation of an intermediate object with `const {a, b} = x;`.
2. `for...of` with destructuring:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, as it uses the optimized for-of loop in modern JavaScript engines.
	* Cons: May require more explicit type checking or array indices if not used carefully.
3. `.forEach` without destructuring:
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward, with no need for explicit array indices or type checking.
	* Cons: Can be slower than other approaches due to the use of `newMap.set(a, b)` inside the callback function.

**Library and Purpose**

In this benchmark, a `Map` object is used as the target data structure. A `Map` is a built-in JavaScript object that stores key-value pairs in a way similar to an object. In this case, it's used to store the mapped elements from the array.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None of the tested approaches explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's standard in modern JavaScript.

**Other Considerations**

When running this benchmark, consider the following factors:

* The size and structure of the input array (in this case, 1 million elements).
* The specific hardware and software configuration used by the test device.
* Any potential caching or optimization effects that might influence the results.

**Alternatives**

If you were to modify or extend this benchmark, some alternatives to consider include:

* Comparing other data structures, such as `ArrayBuffer` or `Set`.
* Using different iteration methods, like `.map()` or `reduce()`.
* Increasing or decreasing the size of the input array.
* Adding additional overhead (e.g., by using a more complex map function).

Performance of JavaScript .forEach, for in v3 (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: `.forEach destructured vs for..of destructured vs .forEach vs for..of`

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

.forEach destructured

for..of destructured

.forEach

for..of

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Performance of JavaScript .forEach, for in v3 (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: .forEach destructured vs for..of destructured vs .forEach vs for..of

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

.forEach destructured

for..of destructured

.forEach

for..of

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: `.forEach destructured vs for..of destructured vs .forEach vs for..of`