Benchmark: jQuery $.each() vs Array.prototype.forEach()

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var arr = ['torus', 'gospel', 'bacon', 'moist', 'lodge', 'flip', 'ev', 'usual', 'glans', 'lanka', 'ames', 'stoic', 'weco', 'buff', 'naacp', 'mercy', 'stork', 'rq', 'mace', '37', 'rung', 'shod', 'snap', 'pr', 'horus', 'lane', 'safe', 'tie', 'yeasty', 'topple', 'grist', 'coed', 'sled', 'bosom', 'packet', 'xn', 'bunch', 'rowdy', 'jo', 'prone', 'styli', 'warmth', 'jimmy', 'launch', 'aspire', 'roil', 'ohm', 'doff', 'slice', 'dream', 'roger', 'theme', 'lz', 'minus', 'lusty', '35th', 'acuity', 'eli', 'spool', 'pivot'];

Tests:

jQuery.each
var temp; $.each(arr, function(index, item) { temp = item; });
Array.prototype.forEach
var temp; arr.forEach(function(item) { temp = item; });
traditional for loop
var temp; for (var i = 0, len = arr.length; i !== len; ++i) { temp = arr[i]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery.each
Array.prototype.forEach
traditional for loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Array.prototype.forEach

8.9M/s

jQuery.each

2.2M/s

traditional for loop

292K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Array.prototype.forEach	8,862,406 Ops/sec
jQuery.each	2,186,992 Ops/sec
traditional for loop	291,744 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 microbenchmarking test case, specifically designed to compare the performance of three different approaches: jQuery's `.each()` method, `Array.prototype.forEach()`, and a traditional for loop.

**What is tested?**

In this benchmark, we're comparing the execution speed of three ways to iterate through an array of strings:

1. **jQuery `.each()` method**: This approach uses jQuery's iterative function, which calls a callback function on each element in the array.
2. **`Array.prototype.forEach()`**: This is a built-in JavaScript method that iterates over an array and executes a provided callback function for each element.
3. **Traditional for loop**: A simple iterative structure using a traditional `for` loop to access each element in the array.

**Options compared**

The three options are being tested, which means we're comparing their performance under the same conditions:

* Execution speed: How quickly does each approach execute?
* Resource usage: What are the memory and CPU requirements for each approach?

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **jQuery `.each()` method**:
	* Pros:
		+ Easy to use and familiar for developers
		+ Can be useful when working with complex, event-driven code
	* Cons:
		+ Adds overhead due to jQuery's internal mechanisms
		+ May not be optimized for performance in all cases
2. **`Array.prototype.forEach()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Built-in and native JavaScript method
		+ Optimized for performance and memory efficiency
	* Cons:
		+ Less intuitive or familiar for developers without prior experience
3. **Traditional for loop**:
	* Pros:
		+ Direct access to array elements using indexing
		+ No added overhead from external libraries
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose and harder to read, especially for complex logic

**Library usage**

The test case uses the jQuery library, which provides a convenient and familiar way to iterate over arrays. However, this also introduces an additional layer of abstraction that may impact performance.

**Special JS features or syntax**

This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the three options being compared. However, it's worth noting that modern JavaScript engines often have various optimization techniques and caching mechanisms that can affect the performance of different approaches.

**Other alternatives**

If you'd like to explore other alternatives or similar benchmarks, here are a few examples:

* `Array.prototype.map()`: Another built-in JavaScript method for transforming arrays.
* `Set` data structure: A native JavaScript collection for storing unique values.
* Custom iterative functions using `forEach()` with callbacks.

Feel free to ask if you have any further questions about this benchmark or would like more information on the alternatives listed above!

jQuery $.each() vs Array.prototype.forEach() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `jQuery.each vs Array.prototype.forEach vs traditional for loop`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

jQuery.each

Array.prototype.forEach

traditional for loop

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

jQuery $.each() vs Array.prototype.forEach() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jQuery.each vs Array.prototype.forEach vs traditional for loop

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

jQuery.each

Array.prototype.forEach

traditional for loop

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: `jQuery.each vs Array.prototype.forEach vs traditional for loop`