Benchmark: lodash forEach vs for ++i loop no condition cached collect eq var alloc

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var values = [{a: 30310}, {b: 100303}, {c: 3040494}]
var count = 0;
var results = [];
var len = values.length;

Tests:

lodash.forEach
_.forEach(values, function(v,i) { results.push(v); ++count; })
native
for (var i = 0; i < len; ++i) { results.push(values[i]); ++count; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.forEach
native

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches for iterating over an array of objects: using Lodash's `forEach` method versus a traditional `for` loop with incrementing an index variable (`i`). The test is run on a specific set of data, which includes three objects with properties `a`, `b`, and `c`.

**What's being tested**

The benchmark tests the performance difference between:

1. Using Lodash's `forEach` method to iterate over the array of objects.
2. A traditional `for` loop with incrementing an index variable (`i`) to access each object in the array.

**Options compared**

Both approaches use a similar loop structure, but they differ in how the iteration is performed:

* Lodash's `forEach`: uses a specialized function that iterates over the array and calls the provided callback function for each element.
* Traditional `for` loop: uses a manual incrementing of an index variable (`i`) to access each element in the array.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Lodash's `forEach`:**
	+ Pros:
		- Concise and readable code
		- No need to manually manage loop variables
	+ Cons:
		- May incur overhead due to the use of a specialized function
		- Limited control over iteration details
* **Traditional `for` loop:**
	+ Pros:
		- Full control over iteration details (e.g., incrementing index variable)
		- No overhead due to using a specialized function
	+ Cons:
		- More verbose code
		- Requires manual management of loop variables

**Library used**

The benchmark uses Lodash, a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various helper functions for tasks like array manipulation, object traversal, and more.

In this specific case, the `forEach` method is used to iterate over the array of objects. Lodash's `forEach` function is designed to handle arrays and iterates over each element in the array, executing the provided callback function for each element.

**Other considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following factors:

* Code readability: If conciseness and readability are important, Lodash's `forEach` might be a better choice. However, if you need fine-grained control over iteration details, the traditional `for` loop might be more suitable.
* Performance: The benchmark suggests that Lodash's `forEach` can be slower than the traditional `for` loop due to the overhead of using a specialized function.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches, consider:

* Using `Array.prototype.forEach()` instead of Lodash's `forEach`
* Using other array methods like `map()`, `filter()`, or `reduce()`
* Implementing your own iteration logic using basic JavaScript features

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

lodash forEach vs for ++i loop no condition cached collect eq var alloc (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.forEach vs native

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.forEach

native

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):