Benchmark: For loop map vs map builtin for 100000 elements

Script Preparation code:

var size = 100000;

Tests:

for
const arr = Array(size).fill(1); const res = []; for (let i = 0; i < size; i++) { res.push(arr[i] + 1); }
Map
const arr = Array(size).fill(1); arr.map(x => x + 1)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
Map

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and understand what's being tested on this specific benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test compares two approaches for iterating over an array and adding 1 to each element: a traditional `for` loop with `push` method, and using the built-in `map` function. The benchmark is designed to measure which approach is faster for an array of size 100,000 elements.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Traditional For Loop**: This approach uses a manual `for` loop to iterate over the array, with an explicit counter variable (`i`) and using the `push` method to add elements to the result array.
2. **Built-in Map Function**: This approach utilizes the built-in `map` function, which applies a provided callback function (in this case, `x => x + 1`) to each element of the input array.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Traditional For Loop**:
	+ Pros: More control over iteration and indexing, no dependency on external functions.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of manual loop management and potential issues with edge cases.
* **Built-in Map Function**:
	+ Pros: Faster execution speed, concise code, and reduces boilerplate code for simple transformations.
	+ Cons: May have higher memory requirements due to creating an intermediate array, and performance can degrade if not properly optimized.

In general, the `map` function is a good choice when you need to apply a transformation to each element in an array, but it may come with some overhead. The traditional for loop approach provides more control but can be slower and more verbose.

**Library/External Functions**

None of the test cases use any external libraries or functions beyond what's built into JavaScript (e.g., `Array`, `push`).

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

This benchmark does not explicitly utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as ES6 arrow functions (`=>`), async/await, or Promises. However, it does rely on the built-in `map` function, which is a relatively modern feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015.

**Alternative Approaches**

For this specific benchmark, alternative approaches would not significantly alter the results:

1. Using a `forEach` loop instead of a traditional for loop: This would likely yield similar performance results due to the overhead of calling the callback function.
2. Utilizing other built-in array methods like `reduce`, `filter`, or `every`: These might be slower than the `map` function for simple transformations, but could offer alternative ways to solve similar problems.
3. Implementing custom loop structures using techniques like tail recursion or loop unrolling: This would likely require significant code changes and is unlikely to provide a substantial performance boost.

Keep in mind that the best approach will depend on the specific requirements of your project and the trade-offs you're willing to make between performance, readability, and maintainability.

Related benchmarks:

For loop map vs map builtin for 100000 elements (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: for vs Map

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

Map

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):