Benchmark: forEach vs reduce vs map vs filter vs forsdddffsfsff qwfdw

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 12345; i++) {
  arr[i] = i;
}

function someFn(i) {
  return (i * 3 * 8 / 1200 * 0.002 / 40 * 0.2);
}

var sumForEach = 0,
  sumReduce = 0,
  sumMap = 0,
  sumFilter = 0,
  sumFor = 0;

Tests:

map
arr.map(item => { if(item == 123) { return item * 2; } return item; });
filter
arr.filter(item => item != 123);
for
var hung = [] for (var j = 0; j < arr.length; j++) { if(arr[j] == 123) { hung[j] = arr[j] * 2; } hung[j] = arr[j]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
map
filter
for

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 break down the provided benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing four different ways to process an array in JavaScript:

1. `map()`
2. `filter()`
3. A custom `for` loop
4. `reduce()` (not explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition, but implied by the presence of a test case)

**Options Compared**

* `map()`: Applies a transformation function to each element of an array and returns a new array with the transformed elements.
* `filter()`: Creates a new array with all elements that pass the test implemented by a provided function.
* Custom `for` loop: Iterates over the array using a traditional `for` loop, applying transformations or filtering as needed.
* `reduce()` (implied): Reduces an array to a single value by accumulating the results of applying a transformation function to each element.

**Pros and Cons**

* **map()**:
	+ Pros: concise, readable, and easy to understand. Returns a new array with transformed elements.
	+ Cons: can be slower for large arrays due to the creation of a new array.
* **filter()**:
	+ Pros: similar to `map()` in terms of readability and conciseness. Can be faster than `map()` for larger arrays since it only creates one new array.
	+ Cons: may not be as intuitive as `map()` for more complex filtering logic.
* Custom `for` loop:
	+ Pros: allows for fine-grained control over iteration, can be optimized for performance.
	+ Cons: can be verbose and less readable than other options. Requires manual indexing and iteration.
* `reduce()` (implied):
	+ Pros: concise and expressive way to reduce an array to a single value.
	+ Cons: may not be as suitable for non-reductionary use cases.

**Library Usage**

None of the test cases explicitly use any third-party libraries, but they do use built-in JavaScript functions (`map()`, `filter()`, etc.). The custom `for` loop uses standard JavaScript syntax.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no explicit mention of special JS features or syntax being used in the benchmark. However, the use of arrow functions (`item => { ... }`) in some test cases is worth noting. Arrow functions are a shorthand way to define small, single-expression functions and were introduced in ECMAScript 2015.

**Other Alternatives**

For each option compared:

* `map()`:
	+ Alternative: `forEach()`
* `filter()`:
	+ Alternative: Using `Array.prototype.every()` or `Array.prototype.some()`
* Custom `for` loop:
	+ Alternative: Using a more modern, concise iteration approach like `Array.prototype.forEach()` or `Array.prototype.map()`.
* `reduce()` (implied):
	+ Alternative: Using other aggregation methods like `Array.prototype.reduceRight()` or `Array.prototype.every()`/`Array.prototype.some()`.

Overall, the benchmark provides a good starting point for understanding the trade-offs between different array processing approaches in JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

forEach vs reduce vs map vs filter vs forsdddffsfsff qwfdw (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: map vs filter vs for

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

map

filter

for

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):