Benchmark: assphinxtersayswhatsuk

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 sum = 0;

Tests:

forEach
arr.forEach(item => sum += someFn(item));
reduce
sumReduce = arr.reduce((lastValue, item) => { return sum += someFn(item); });
map
arr.map(item => (sum += someFn(item)));
filter
arr.filter(item => (sum += someFn(item)));
for
for (var j = 0; j < arr.length; j++) { sum += arr[j] + someFn(arr[j]); }
forOf
for (const num of arr) { sum += num + someFn(num); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
forEach
reduce
map
filter
for
forOf

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

forEach

649/s

reduce

559/s

map

523/s

filter

435/s

forOf

338/s

for

241/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ forEach	649 Ops/sec
reduce	559 Ops/sec
map	523 Ops/sec
filter	435 Ops/sec
forOf	338 Ops/sec
for	241 Ops/sec

assphinxtersayswhatsuk (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `forEach vs reduce vs map vs filter vs for vs forOf`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

forEach

reduce

map

filter

for

forOf

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

assphinxtersayswhatsuk (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: forEach vs reduce vs map vs filter vs for vs forOf

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

forEach

reduce

map

filter

for

forOf

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `forEach vs reduce vs map vs filter vs for vs forOf`