Benchmark: Map vs forEach GOLGOTHA

Script Preparation code:

var array1 = ["a", "b", "c"];
var obj1 = {"aa": 1, "ab": 1, "ac": 1, "ba": 1, "bb": 1, "bc": 1};

Tests:

Map
var a = array1.map(key => obj1[`a${key}`]); var b = array1.map(key => obj1[`b${key}`]); var c = array1.map(key => { return !!obj1[`a${key}`] && !!obj1[`b${key}`] ? 1 : null });
ForEach
var a={}, b={}, c={}; array1.forEach(key => { a[key] = obj1[`a${key}`]; b[key] = obj1[`b${key}`]; c[key] = !!obj1[`a${key}`] && !!obj1[`b${key}`] ? 1 : null; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Map
ForEach

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.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches: using the `map()` function with arrow functions versus using the `forEach()` method. Both approaches are used to iterate over an array and populate objects based on a nested object.

**Options Compared**

There are three main options being compared:

1. **Map() with Arrow Functions**: This approach uses the `map()` function with arrow functions (`key =>`) to create new arrays and populating objects.
2. **Map() without Arrow Functions**: This approach uses the `map()` function without arrow functions (e.g., `function(key) { ... }`).
3. **ForEach()**: This approach uses the `forEach()` method to iterate over the array and populate objects.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Map() with Arrow Functions**:
	* Pros: concise, readable, and expressive code; avoids explicit function declarations.
	* Cons: may be less efficient than other approaches due to the overhead of arrow functions.
2. **Map() without Arrow Functions**:
	* Pros: can be more efficient than the first approach since it avoids the overhead of arrow functions.
	* Cons: requires more boilerplate code and is less readable than the first approach.
3. **ForEach()**:
	* Pros: can be more efficient than the `map()` approaches since it avoids creating new arrays and objects.
	* Cons: may require more memory and processing power due to the iteration over the array.

**Library Usage**

There is no library usage in this benchmark, as all code snippets are self-contained JavaScript functions.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None of the code snippets use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would affect their performance. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may have specific optimizations or features for certain types of iterations (e.g., `forEach()`).

**Other Alternatives**

Other alternatives to these approaches might include:

* Using `reduce()` instead of `map()` or `forEach()`
* Using a loop with explicit iteration variables
* Using Web Workers or parallel processing techniques

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these approaches can be significant, especially for large datasets. The benchmarking results provide insight into which approach is more efficient on specific hardware configurations and browsers.

Related benchmarks:

Map vs forEach GOLGOTHA (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Map vs ForEach

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Map

ForEach

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):