Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
Caching for loop conditions
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
Comparing performance of with and without caching array length.
Comparing performance of:
With cache vs Without cache
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var arr = [...Array(1000).keys()];
Tests:
With cache
let sum = 0; for (let i = 0, arrLen=arr.length; i < arrLen; i++){ sum = arr[i]; }
Without cache
let sum = 0; for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++){ sum = arr[i]; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
With cache
Without cache
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 134 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=602533" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
With cache
612K/s
Without cache
469K/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
With cache
612,271 Ops/sec
Without cache
468,769 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is defined by two test cases: 1. **With cache**: The loop iterates over an array of 1000 elements, storing its length in a variable `arrLen`. This allows the loop to skip unnecessary iterations, as it knows the exact number of elements. 2. **Without cache**: The loop iterates over the same array without caching the length. **What's being tested** The benchmark is testing the performance difference between these two approaches: using and not using an array length variable (`arrLen`) to determine the number of iterations in a loop. **Options compared** Two options are being compared: 1. **Cache**: Storing the array length in a variable `arrLen` before the loop. 2. **No cache**: Not storing the array length, relying on the built-in property `length` of the array to determine the number of elements. **Pros and Cons** **With Cache:** Pros: * Can avoid unnecessary iterations by using the cached value. * May lead to better performance, especially for large arrays. Cons: * Requires additional memory to store the length variable. * May increase code complexity if not used carefully. **Without Cache:** Pros: * Does not require additional memory. * Is a simpler and more straightforward approach. Cons: * May result in slower performance due to unnecessary iterations. **Considerations** Other factors that might affect the results include: * Array size and density (e.g., sparse arrays vs. dense arrays). * JavaScript engine optimizations and caching mechanisms. * Platform, browser, and version differences. **Library usage** The test case uses no external libraries or dependencies. **Special JS features or syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. **Alternatives** Other alternatives to testing performance of loops with array length variables might include: * Testing the performance of different iteration methods, such as `for...of`, `forEach`, or `map`. * Comparing the performance of other caching mechanisms, like memoization or caching in a separate data structure. * Measuring the impact of loop unrolling, pipelining, or other optimization techniques.
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?