Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
reversed versus ordered (+ cached)
(version: 1)
Comparing performance of:
ordered vs reversed vs ordered cached
Created:
one year ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var array = []; for (let i = 0 ; i < 10000 ; i++) { array.push (Math.random () * 100); }
Tests:
ordered
let sum = 0; for (let i = 0 ; i < array.length ; i++) sum += array[i];
reversed
let sum = 0; for (let i = array.length - 1 ; i >= 0 ; i--) sum += array[i];
ordered cached
let sum = 0; let length = array.length; for (let i = 0 ; i < length ; i++) sum += array[i];
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
ordered
reversed
ordered cached
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 130 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
Test name
Executions per second
ordered
807.7 Ops/sec
reversed
1630.2 Ops/sec
ordered cached
1634.2 Ops/sec
Related benchmarks:
for uncached/cached vs. forEach
This site broken
forinfororfor*for
[i] vs .at(i)
Large but empty Array versus Small Object (Creation wise)
Small but maybe empty Array versus Small Object (Creation wise)
12132132132131243214124
reversed versus ordered
ordered versus reversed (+ cached)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?