Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Array fill vs for i loop
(version: 0)
People tend to use array fil and then foreach, we know foreach is faster than a for loop, but is it also faster if you use array fill first?
Comparing performance of:
for vs fill and foreach
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var iterations = 10000; var arrayTest = new Array(iterations);
Tests:
for
for (i = 0; i < iterations; i++) { arrayTest[i] = 0 }
fill and foreach
arrayTest.fill(0)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
for
fill and foreach
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; rv:132.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/132.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 132 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=567938" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
fill and foreach
126K/s
for
16K/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
fill and foreach
126,133 Ops/sec
for
15,949 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks. **Benchmark Description** The provided JSON represents a benchmarking test for comparing two approaches to fill an array with zeros: using a `for` loop and using the `fill()` method in combination with a `forEach` loop. **Options Compared** Two options are being compared: 1. **For Loop**: Using a traditional `for` loop to iterate over an array and assign a value (in this case, zero) to each element. 2. **Fill() + Foreach**: Using the `fill()` method to fill the entire array with a single value (zero), followed by using a `forEach` loop to iterate over the array. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **For Loop** * Pros: Generally considered more explicit and easier to understand for some developers. * Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of incrementing an index variable, checking bounds, and updating the value. 2. **Fill() + Foreach** * Pros: Often faster since it avoids the overhead of a loop counter and index management. It also provides a concise way to fill an array with a single operation. * Cons: May be less intuitive for some developers who are not familiar with the `fill()` method. **Library Used** The benchmark uses the JavaScript Array prototype, specifically the `fill()` and `forEach` methods, which are built-in features of the language. No external libraries are required for this test. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** No special JavaScript feature or syntax is being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two conventional approaches to filling an array with zeros. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider the following: * Using `Array.prototype.map()` instead of a loop: While not exactly what's being compared here, using `map()` could provide similar performance characteristics as the `fill()` + `forEach` approach. * Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js for array operations: These libraries often provide optimized implementations of various array methods that might offer better performance than built-in JavaScript methods. Now, when evaluating benchmarking results, it's essential to consider factors beyond just raw execution speed, such as code readability, maintainability, and potential errors.
Related benchmarks
Array fill foreach, vs for i loop
Array fill map, vs for i loop
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?