Benchmark: JS Test 1230 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
  arr[i] = i;
}

function someFn(i) {
  return i * 3 * 8;
}

Tests:

1
arr.forEach(function (item){ someFn(item); })
2
for (var i = 0, len = arr.length; i < len; i++) { someFn(arr[i]); }
3
arr.map(item => someFn(item))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2
3

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the JavaScript microbenchmark provided by MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition JSON contains the following information:

* `Name`: A unique name for the benchmark, in this case "JS Test 1230".
* `Script Preparation Code`: The initial code that sets up the environment for the benchmark. In this case, it creates an array `arr` with 1000 elements and defines a function `someFn(i)` that takes an integer `i` as input.
* `Html Preparation Code`: An optional section to include HTML code before running the benchmark. This section is empty in this example.

**Individual Test Cases**

The individual test cases are defined in an array of objects, each containing:

* `Benchmark Definition`: A string representing the JavaScript code that will be executed in the benchmark. These codes are variations of the same function call:
	+ Case 1: `arr.forEach(function (item){someFn(item);})`
	+ Case 2: `for (var i = 0, len = arr.length; i < len; i++) {someFn(arr[i]);}`
	+ Case 3: `arr.map(item => someFn(item))`
* `Test Name`: A unique identifier for each test case.

**Library and Functionality**

The library used in the benchmark is not explicitly stated. However, it's likely that MeasureThat.net uses a JavaScript engine like V8 (used by Google Chrome) or SpiderMonkey (used by Mozilla Firefox).

The function `someFn(i)` takes an integer `i` as input and returns its value multiplied by 3 and then by 8.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, the following options are compared:

1. **Iterating over an array using `forEach()`**: This method is used in Case 1.
2. **Iterating over an array using a traditional `for` loop**: This approach is used in Case 2.
3. **Using the `map()` function**: This method is used in Case 3.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

* **Iterating over an array using `forEach()`**:
	+ Pros: concise, easy to read, and maintain.
	+ Cons: may have performance issues due to the overhead of the function call.
* **Iterating over an array using a traditional `for` loop**:
	+ Pros: can be more efficient, as it avoids the overhead of the `forEach()` method.
	+ Cons: less readable and more verbose than `forEach()`.
* **Using the `map()` function**:
	+ Pros: concise and expressive, suitable for transformations that require a new output value.
	+ Cons: may have performance issues due to the overhead of creating a new array.

**Special JS Feature**

The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features like async/await, Promises, or arrow functions (although arrow functions are used in Case 3).

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative microbenchmarks, MeasureThat.net also provides benchmarks for other JavaScript engines and browsers. Some popular alternatives include:

1. **Benchmark.js**: A benchmarking library that supports multiple JavaScript engines and browsers.
2. **js-benchmark**: A simple benchmarking tool that supports various JavaScript engines and browsers.
3. **Google's V8 Benchmark**: A benchmarking suite specifically designed for measuring the performance of Google Chrome's V8 engine.

These alternatives may provide different options for testing and comparing different aspects of your code, such as garbage collection or web worker performance.

Related benchmarks:

JS Test 1230 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2 vs 3

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

3

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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