Benchmark: Promo Map - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<html>
    <head>
        <script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.8.3/underscore-min.js"></script>
        <script>
        underscore = _;
        </script>


        <script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.12.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

        <script>
        lodash = _;
        </script>
    </head>
    <body>
    </body>
</html>

Script Preparation code:


var PromosArray = [
    {
        type: "regular",
        display: "$123.00"
    },
    {
        type: "markdown",
        display: "$100.00"
    },
    {
        type: "promo",
        display: "$80.00"
    }
];

function testArrayIteration() {
    var items = [];
    var i;

    for (i = 0; i < PromosArray.length; i++) {
        items.push(PromosArray[i].type);
    }

    return items;
  
}

function testArrayMap() {
    return PromosArray.map(function (promo) {
        return promo.type;
    });
}

function testUnderscoreMap() {
    return underscore.map(PromosArray, function (promo) {
        return promo.type;
    });
}

function testLodashMap() {
    return lodash.map(PromosArray, function (promo) {
        return promo.type;
    });
}

function testForLoop() {
    var newArray = [];
  
  	for (var i = 0; i < PromosArray.length; i++) {
     	newArray.push(PromosArray[i].type); 
    }
  
  	return newArray;
}

Tests:

testArrayIteration
testArrayIteration();
testArrayMap
testArrayMap();
testUnderscoreMap
testUnderscoreMap();
testLodashMap
testLodashMap();
testForLoop
testForLoop();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
testArrayIteration
testArrayMap
testUnderscoreMap
testLodashMap
testForLoop

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.

Measuring the performance of different JavaScript array iteration methods is an essential task in understanding how to optimize code for various use cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the execution time of four different ways to iterate over an array:

1.  **Array.prototype.map()**
2.  **Underscore.js (.map())**
3.  **Lodash.js (.map())**
4.  **Traditional For Loop**

Each test case involves iterating over a predefined array (`PromosArray`) and extracting the `type` property of each object.

**Options Compared:**

### Array.prototype.map()

*   This method is built-in to JavaScript arrays, making it a convenient choice for many developers.
*   It iterates over the array once, using a closure to process each element.
*   The closure provides access to the current index and value in the array.

Pros:

*   Native support and performance
*   Easy to use

Cons:

*   Only suitable for arrays with a fixed number of elements. When dealing with large datasets or dynamic lengths, it can be inefficient.

### Underscore.js (.map())

*   `_.map()` is part of the popular Underscore.js library.
*   It uses a similar approach to `Array.prototype.map()`, but as a function outside the array context.
*   This allows for a closure-like behavior with additional functionality provided by Underscore.js.

Pros:

*   Extends the native `.map()` method with utility functions
*   Suitable for large datasets and dynamic lengths

Cons:

*   Requires including an external library, adding overhead
*   The additional features might not be necessary or useful in this specific scenario

### Lodash.js (.map())

*   `_.map()` is another popular function from the Lodash library.
*   Similar to Underscore.js, it extends the native `.map()` method with utility functions.

Pros:

*   Includes a broader range of utility functions than Underscore.js
*   Suitable for large datasets and dynamic lengths

Cons:

*   Requires including an external library, adding overhead
*   The additional features might not be necessary or useful in this specific scenario

### Traditional For Loop

*   A basic, manual approach to iterating over the array.
*   Can be more flexible when working with non-array data structures.

Pros:

*   No dependencies on external libraries
*   Highly customizable and flexible

Cons:

*   Can be error-prone due to lack of explicit type checking
*   Less performant than native `.map()` methods or those provided by utility libraries

Related benchmarks:

Promo Map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: testArrayIteration vs testArrayMap vs testUnderscoreMap vs testLodashMap vs testForLoop

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

testArrayIteration

testArrayMap

testUnderscoreMap

testLodashMap

testForLoop

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):