Benchmark: forEach vs map123

Tests:

map
const data = []; for (i = 1; i < 9999; i++) { data.push(i) } const blocks = [[], [], []]; data.map((val) => { blocks[val%3].push(val); });
forEach
const data = []; for (i = 1; i < 9999999; i++) { data.push(i) } const blocks = [[], [], []]; data.forEach((val) => { blocks[val%3].push(val); });
data only
const data = []; for (i = 1; i < 9999999; i++) { data.push(i) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
map
forEach
data only

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'll break down the provided JSON benchmark definitions and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The `Benchmark Definition` is a string that defines the JavaScript code to be executed for each test case. It contains two parts:

* The initialization of an array `data` with 9999 elements using a `for` loop.
* The creation of three empty arrays `blocks` and a mapping function.

**Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **map**
	* Benchmark Definition: Uses the `map()` method to iterate over the `data` array and push each element into one of the three `blocks` arrays based on the remainder of the division by 3.
2. **forEach**
	* Benchmark Definition: Uses the `forEach()` method to iterate over the `data` array and push each element into one of the three `blocks` arrays based on the remainder of the division by 3.
3. **data only**
	* Benchmark Definition: Only initializes the `data` array with 9999 elements, without creating any `blocks` arrays or using a mapping function.

**Comparison**

The main comparison being made is between the performance of the `map()` and `forEach()` methods when used to iterate over the `data` array. The `data only` test case is included as a baseline to ensure that the benchmarking framework is working correctly.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **map()**
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and expressive syntax.
		+ Can be more efficient for larger arrays, since it creates a new array with the transformed elements instead of modifying the original array.
	* Cons:
		+ Creates a new array, which can lead to increased memory usage.
2. **forEach()**
	* Pros:
		+ Does not create a new array, making it more memory-efficient for large arrays.
	* Cons:
		+ Less concise and expressive syntax compared to `map()`.
		+ May be slower due to the need to iterate over the elements in reverse order.

**Library**

There is no specific library being used in this benchmark. The `map()` and `forEach()` methods are built-in JavaScript methods.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None of the provided code uses any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, Promises, or modern ES6+ features like arrow functions, template literals, or destructuring.

**Other alternatives**

Some alternative approaches could be:

* Using a `for` loop with an array index to iterate over the elements.
* Using `Array.prototype.reduce()` method to aggregate the elements into the `blocks` arrays.
* Using a library like Lodash that provides a `map()` and `forEach()` implementation.

It's worth noting that the choice of method ( `map()` or `forEach()`) ultimately depends on the specific requirements and constraints of the use case. In general, if you need to perform some operation on each element of an array and don't care about the original order, `map()` is a good choice. If you need to iterate over the elements in reverse order or modify the original array, `forEach()` might be a better option.

Related benchmarks:

forEach vs map123 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: map vs forEach vs data only

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

map

forEach

data only

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):