Benchmark: sdasdavg2d2dasdqxxx

Script Preparation code:

window.DATA = Array(5);

Tests:

map
let result = []; result = DATA.map(d => d + 1); result = DATA.map(d => d + 1); result = DATA.map(d => d + 1); result = DATA.map(d => d + 1);
loop
let result = []; for (const d in DATA) { result.push(d + 1); } result = []; for (const d in DATA) { result.push(d + 1); } result = []; for (const d in DATA) { result.push(d + 1); } result = []; for (const d in DATA) { result.push(d + 1); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
map
loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/125.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 125 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
map	4283337.5 Ops/sec
loop	3100613.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents two benchmark test cases: "map" and "loop". The tests compare the performance of two different approaches to achieve a similar goal:

1. **Map**: A method on arrays that returns a new array with the results of applying a given function to each element.
2. **Loop**: A traditional for loop approach that iterates over an array using the `in` keyword and pushes elements to a result array.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Array.prototype.map()**
2. **Manual looping with `for...in` and `push()`**

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Array.prototype.map():**
	* Pros:
		+ Concise and readable syntax.
		+ Optimized by browsers for performance.
		+ Can handle large datasets without significant memory overhead.
	* Cons:
		+ May have additional overhead due to method calls and property lookups.
		+ Not suitable for very small datasets, as it may create unnecessary intermediate arrays.
2. **Manual looping with `for...in` and `push():`
	* Pros:
		+ Can be more control-oriented and flexible.
		+ May perform better for very small datasets or specific use cases.
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose and harder to read, especially for larger loops.
		+ Requires manual memory management, which can lead to performance issues.

**Library**

The `DATA` array is a custom variable assigned in the script preparation code. It represents an input dataset used by both test cases.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None mentioned explicitly, but it's worth noting that MeasureThat.net uses JavaScript as its programming language. The benchmark results are based on actual execution times, so any optimizations or peculiarities of the JavaScript engine being tested (e.g., Chrome 125) will be reflected in the results.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to compare alternative approaches, some options might include:

1. **Using `forEach()` instead of `map()`**: While not directly comparable, `forEach()` would have a similar effect but without creating an intermediate array.
2. **Using `reduce()` instead of `map()`**: Similar to `map()`, but with the added benefit of reducing the output array in a single operation.
3. **Using a library or utility function for looping**: Depending on the specific requirements, a dedicated library like Lodash might provide more efficient and readable alternatives.

Keep in mind that benchmarking small code snippets like this often focuses on demonstrating performance differences rather than exploring extensive feature sets.

**Conclusion**

In summary, MeasureThat.net provides an engaging platform to compare the performance of two distinct approaches: using `Array.prototype.map()` versus manual looping with `for...in` and `push()`. Understanding these options and their trade-offs is essential for choosing the most efficient solution for a specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

sdasdavg2d2dasdqxxx (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: map vs loop

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

map

loop

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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