Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
for const comparison
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
with const vs simple for vs forEach
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var people = [{name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}]
Tests:
with const
const peopleWork = []; for (const p of people){ peopleWork.push(p); }
simple for
const peopleWork = []; for (p of people){ peopleWork.push(p); }
forEach
const peopleWork = []; people.forEach((p) => { peopleWork.push(p); });
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
with const
simple for
forEach
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/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 123 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
Test name
Executions per second
with const
16617028.0 Ops/sec
simple for
640163.6 Ops/sec
forEach
13735197.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Definition JSON** The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which is a script that defines a test scenario. In this case, we have three benchmark definitions: 1. "for const comparison" 2. "with const" 3. "simple for" The benchmark definition for "for const comparison" creates an array `people` with 12 elements and then uses a `for` loop to iterate over the array, pushing each element onto another array `peopleWork`. This is repeated three times. The other two benchmark definitions ("with const" and "simple for") are similar, but with slight variations: * "with const": Uses a `const` declaration for the variable `p`, which means that the variable is declared but not reassigned. * "simple for": Does not use the `const` keyword. **What's being tested?** The benchmark is testing the performance of three different ways to iterate over an array in JavaScript: 1. A traditional `for` loop with a variable declaration (not using `const`). 2. An iterative approach using a `forEach` method. 3. An iterative approach using a `const` variable. **Options compared** The benchmark is comparing the performance of these three approaches: * Traditional `for` loop * `forEach` method * Using `const` for variable declaration **Pros and Cons** Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach: 1. **Traditional `for` loop**: This is a straightforward way to iterate over an array, but it can be slower than other approaches due to the overhead of declaring a new variable. * Pros: Easy to understand and implement. * Cons: Can be slower due to variable declaration overhead. 2. **forEach** method: This approach uses a callback function to process each element in the array. * Pros: Can be faster than traditional `for` loops, as it avoids declaring a new variable. * Cons: May have performance issues if the callback function is complex or expensive to execute. 3. **Using `const` for variable declaration**: This approach uses a `const` variable to iterate over the array, which can help avoid variable hoisting issues. * Pros: Can improve performance by avoiding variable declaration overhead. * Cons: May not be compatible with older JavaScript versions that don't support `const`. **Library and special JS features** The benchmark definitions use the following libraries: * None explicitly, but the `forEach` method is a built-in Array method in modern JavaScript. No special JavaScript features are used in these benchmark definitions. They only focus on testing basic iteration approaches. **Other alternatives** If you were to extend this benchmark, you could consider adding more variations, such as: * Using `for...of` loops instead of traditional `for` loops * Adding array elements with complex properties or expensive operations * Testing performance in different JavaScript environments (e.g., Node.js, WebKit) Keep in mind that the goal of a benchmark is to measure the performance of specific code patterns, so it's essential to keep the variations focused and relevant to the test scenario.
Related benchmarks:
lodash_array_objects
lodash_array_objects_2
array to obj by key value advanced
const in a for loop
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?