Benchmark: Math.min and Math.max vs reduce vs for for 100000 items.

Script Preparation code:

var data = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 100000; ++i) data.push(Math.random());

Tests:

Math.Min
Math.min(...data);
Math.Max
Math.max(...data);
Reduce for min
data.reduce((min, cur) => min > cur ? cur : min, data[0]);
Reduce for max
data.reduce((max, cur) => max < cur ? cur : max, data[0]);
For for min
var min = data[0]; for (var i = 1; i < data.length; ++i) { var c = i; if (min > c) min = c; }
For for max
var max = data[0]; for (var i = 1; i < data.length; ++i) { var c = i; if (max < c) max = c; }
For of for min
var min = data[0]; for (var c in data) { if (min > c) min = c; }
For of for max
var max = data[0]; for (var c in data) { if (max < c) max = c; }

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 39 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 39 runs

For for max

3K/s

For for min

2K/s

Reduce for max

1K/s

Reduce for min

1K/s

Math.Max

1K/s

Math.Min

1K/s

For of for max

264/s

For of for min

253/s

Fastest: For for max (10.6x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ For for max: 2,681 ops/sec
• For for min: 2,431 ops/sec
• Reduce for max: 1,224 ops/sec
• Reduce for min: 1,221 ops/sec
• Math.Max: 1,203 ops/sec
• Math.Min: 1,173 ops/sec
• For of for max: 264 ops/sec
• For of for min: 253 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.Min
Math.Max
Reduce for min
Reduce for max
For for min
For for max
For of for min
For of for max

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/149.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 149 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

For for max

8K/s

For for min

6K/s

Reduce for min

1K/s

Reduce for max

1K/s

Math.Max

493/s

Math.Min

464/s

For of for max

321/s

For of for min

318/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ For for max	8,342 Ops/sec
For for min	6,002 Ops/sec
Reduce for min	1,414 Ops/sec
Reduce for max	1,279 Ops/sec
Math.Max	493 Ops/sec
Math.Min	464 Ops/sec
For of for max	321 Ops/sec
For of for min	318 Ops/sec

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 on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares four different approaches to find the minimum or maximum value in an array of 100,000 random numbers:

1. `Math.min()` and `Math.max()`
2. Reduction with a callback function (`data.reduce()`)
3. Two types of for loops (`for` and `for...in`)
4. Two variants of `for...in` loop with different indexing (`for in` with array indexing)

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests the following options:

1. **Math.min()** and **Math.max()**: These are built-in functions that find the minimum or maximum value in an array, respectively.
2. **Reduction with a callback function (`data.reduce()`)**: This approach uses the `reduce()` method to iterate over the array and find the minimum or maximum value.
3. **Two types of for loops**:
	* **Classic for loop**: This is a simple for loop that iterates over the array using an index variable.
	* **For loop with array indexing (`for (var i = 0; i < data.length; ++i)`)**: This approach uses an index variable to iterate over the array, similar to the classic for loop.
4. **Two variants of `for...in` loop**:
	* **Classic for...in loop**: This is a for loop that iterates over the array using the `for...in` syntax, which enumerates properties of the object (in this case, the array).
	* **For...in with array indexing (`for (var c in data)`)**: This approach uses the `for...in` syntax to iterate over the array and access its elements.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each option:

1. **Math.min()** and **Math.max()**:
	* Pros: Simple, fast, and efficient.
	* Cons: Limited control over the iteration process.
2. **Reduction with a callback function (`data.reduce()`)**:
	* Pros: Flexible, concise, and can be used for more complex operations.
	* Cons: May have performance overhead due to the callback function evaluation.
3. **Classic for loop**:
	* Pros: Simple, efficient, and well understood.
	* Cons: Requires manual indexing and control over the iteration process.
4. **For loop with array indexing (`for (var i = 0; i < data.length; ++i)`)**:
	* Pros: Similar to a classic for loop but with array indexing.
	* Cons: Still requires manual indexing and control over the iteration process.
5. **Classic for...in loop**:
	* Pros: Simple, efficient, and well understood.
	* Cons: Iterates over properties of the object (array), not indices.
6. **For...in with array indexing (`for (var c in data)`)**:
	* Pros: Similar to a classic for loop but uses `for...in` syntax.
	* Cons: Iterates over properties of the object (array), not indices.

**Performance**

The performance results show that `Math.min()` and `Math.max()` are generally the fastest approaches, followed by the reduction with a callback function. The for loops and for-in variants have varying performance depending on the indexing approach used.

In summary, the benchmark highlights the importance of choosing the right algorithmic approach based on the specific requirements of your use case. While `Math.min()` and `Math.max()` are simple and efficient, the reduction with a callback function offers more flexibility and can be useful for more complex operations. The for loops and for-in variants require manual indexing and control over the iteration process but offer simplicity and efficiency in their own right.

Math.min and Math.max vs reduce vs for for 100000 items. (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Math.Min vs Math.Max vs Reduce for min vs Reduce for max vs For for min vs For for max vs For of for min vs For of for max`

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Math.Min

Math.Max

Reduce for min

Reduce for max

For for min

For for max

For of for min

For of for max

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 39 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 39 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Math.min and Math.max vs reduce vs for for 100000 items. (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.Min vs Math.Max vs Reduce for min vs Reduce for max vs For for min vs For for max vs For of for min vs For of for max

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Math.Min

Math.Max

Reduce for min

Reduce for max

For for min

For for max

For of for min

For of for max

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 39 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 39 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Math.Min vs Math.Max vs Reduce for min vs Reduce for max vs For for min vs For for max vs For of for min vs For of for max`