Benchmark: forEach vs for..loop fixed length

Script Preparation code:

var gsmCells = [
        {
            "countrycode": 250,
            "operatorid": 2,
            "lac": 9703,
            "cellid": 23446,
            "signal_strength": -75
        },
        {
            "countrycode": 250,
            "operatorid": 2,
            "lac": 9703,
            "cellid": 59141,
            "signal_strength": -76
        },
        {
            "countrycode": 250,
            "operatorid": 2,
            "lac": 9703,
            "cellid": 6924,
            "signal_strength": -80
        },
        {
            "countrycode": 250,
            "operatorid": 2,
            "lac": 9703,
            "cellid": 23449,
            "signal_strength": -81
        }
    ];

Tests:

reduce
let max = gsmCells[0]; gsmCells.forEach( (element, index) => { if(element.signal_strength > max.signal_strength) max = element; } )
for
let max = gsmCells[0]; const a = gsmCells.lenght; for(let i = 0; i < a; i++){ if(gsmCells[i].signal_strength > max.signal_strength) max = gsmCells[i]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
reduce
for

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/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

for

8.9M/s

reduce

7.4M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ for	8,905,000 Ops/sec
reduce	7,431,715 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of two approaches for finding the maximum signal strength in an array: `forEach` and `for` loops with fixed length iteration.

**Benchmark Definitions**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **`reduce`**: This test case uses the `forEach` method to iterate over the array and find the maximum element.
2. **`for`**: This test case uses a traditional `for` loop with fixed length iteration to iterate over the array and find the maximum element.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

1. **`forEach`**: The `forEach` method is a built-in JavaScript method that executes a provided function for each element in an array.
2. **`for` loop with fixed length iteration**: This approach uses a traditional `for` loop with a fixed length counter to iterate over the array.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **`forEach`**:
	* Pros: Concise and expressive code, easy to read and maintain.
	* Cons: May incur additional overhead due to function invocation and callback execution.
2. **`for` loop with fixed length iteration**:
	* Pros: Can be faster for large arrays since it avoids the overhead of `forEach`.
	* Cons: Code can become more verbose and less readable.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark, as both approaches are built-in JavaScript methods or traditional loops.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None of these test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard `forEach` and `for` constructs.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternative approaches to finding the maximum element in an array include:

1. **Using `Math.max()`**: A built-in JavaScript method that can be used to find the maximum element in an array.
2. **Using a filter and `reduce()`**: An approach that uses a filter function to narrow down the elements before applying a reduction function to find the maximum value.

Example:
```javascript
const max = gsmCells.reduce((max, current) => {
  return current.signal_strength > max.signal_strength ? current : max;
});
```
This approach is often considered more concise and readable than the `forEach` or traditional `for` loop approaches. However, its performance may vary depending on the size of the array and the specific use case.

forEach vs for..loop fixed length (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `reduce vs for`

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

reduce

for

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

forEach vs for..loop fixed length (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: reduce vs for

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

reduce

for

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: `reduce vs for`