Benchmark: access arr element and multiply it in loops: for vs forEach vs for..in

Script Preparation code:

var array = [...new Array(1000)].map((e, i) => i + 1);

Tests:

for
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) { array[i] = array[i] * 1000; }
foreach
array.forEach((e, i) => { array[i] = e * 1000; });
for..in
for (var i in array) { array[i] = array[i] * 1000; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
foreach
for..in

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/117.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 117 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for	1045574.8 Ops/sec
foreach	113247.8 Ops/sec
for..in	16197.4 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 3 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark provided aims to compare the performance of three different loop constructs in JavaScript when accessing and modifying elements in an array. The constructs being tested are:

1. **For Loop**
2. **forEach Method**
3. **for..in Loop**

### Options Compared

#### 1. **For Loop**
```javascript
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
  array[i] = array[i] * 1000;
}
```
- **Pros**:
  - Highly efficient for straightforward tasks, especially when the number of iterations is known.
  - Allows manual control of the loop index and can be more performant than other methods due to minimal overhead.
- **Cons**:
  - Code may be less readable compared to higher-level abstractions like `forEach`.

#### 2. **forEach Method**
```javascript
array.forEach((e, i) => {
  array[i] = e * 1000;
});
```
- **Pros**:
  - Provides a cleaner and more expressive syntax that abstracts away boilerplate code.
  - Automatically handles iteration and provides a direct reference to each element.
- **Cons**:
  - It may have slight performance overhead due to the function call for each iteration.
  - Cannot be easily exited with a `break` statement, making it less flexible in certain scenarios.

#### 3. **for..in Loop**
```javascript
for (var i in array) {
  array[i] = array[i] * 1000;
}
```
- **Pros**:
  - Allows for iterating over object properties and can be useful in cases where you are not strictly iterating over array indices.
- **Cons**:
  - Not recommended for array iteration, as it can include inherited properties, leading to unexpected behavior and potentially erroneous results.
  - Generally less efficient than the traditional `for` loop or `forEach`, as it generates more overhead and doesn't guarantee iteration order.

### Benchmark Results
The benchmark results show the performance of each loop method in terms of `ExecutionsPerSecond`:

- **For Loop**: 1,045,574.75 executions/second
- **forEach**: 113,247.78 executions/second
- **for..in**: 16,197.42 executions/second

From these results, it's clear that the traditional `for` loop outperforms both `forEach` and `for..in`. The `forEach` method, while convenient, incurs some performance penalties due to function invocation on each element, and the `for..in` loop shows the lowest performance due to its overhead and potential pitfalls in usage with arrays.

### Other Considerations
- **Array's Methods and Performance**: The performance can also depend on the JavaScript engine's optimization for different loop constructs. In performance-critical applications, it may be beneficial to profile different techniques.
- **Readability vs. Performance**: Generally, there is a trade-off between writing readable code and achieving maximum performance. In situations where performance is critical, developers often opt for traditional loops, while in general-purpose code, higher-order functions like `forEach` might be preferred for clarity.
- **Alternative Methods**: Other alternatives for iterating through arrays include `map`, `filter`, and `reduce`, which can provide functional programming paradigms at a slight cost to performance compared to traditional loop structures. However, their utility often lies in manipulating or transforming data rather than simple iteration for effects (like updating values).

In conclusion, this benchmark highlights the relative performance characteristics of common JavaScript looping constructs and emphasizes the importance of considering both performance and code maintainability during the choice of implementation.

Related benchmarks:

access arr element and multiply it in loops: for vs forEach vs for..in (version: 1)

Compare loop performance

Comparing performance of: for vs foreach vs for..in

Created: 3 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

foreach

for..in

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 3 months ago):