Benchmark: forEach vs filter nvmnghia 1812

HTML Preparation code:

<!--your preparation HTML code goes here-->

Script Preparation code:

var statuses = ["active", "inactive", "nvmnghia", "bienpm"];
var data = Array.from({ length: 1_000 }, () => ({
  status: statuses[Math.floor(Math.random() * statuses.length)],
}));

Tests:

filter
const active = data.filter((item) => item.status === "active"); const inactive = data.filter((item) => item.status === "inactive"); const nvmnghia = data.filter((item) => item.status === "nvmnghia"); const bienpm = data.filter((item) => item.status === "bienpm"); return { active, inactive, nvmnghia, bienpm };
forEach
const active = []; const inactive = []; const nvmnghia = []; const bienpm = []; data.forEach((item) => { if (item.status === "active") active.push(item); else if (item.status === "inactive") inactive.push(item); else if (item.status === "nvmnghia") nvmnghia.push(item); else if (item.status === "bienpm") bienpm.push(item); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
filter
forEach

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
filter	48437.8 Ops/sec
forEach	66977.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

forEach vs filter nvmnghia 1812 (version: 3)

Comparing performance of: filter vs forEach

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

filter

forEach

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A