Run results for: `filter().length` vs. `reduce` vs. `for`

Run details:

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser: Chrome 126

Operating system: Windows

Device Platform: Desktop

Date tested: 2 years ago

reduce

319K/s

for loop

319K/s

filter().length

314K/s

View exact numbers

Script Preparation code:

var sample = Array(1000).fill(0).map((_, idx) => idx);
var selected = [10, 134, 245, 355, 489, 583, 682, 823, 2081, 3892, 4892, 5829, 6832];

Tests:

filter().length
var total = selected.filter(id => sample.includes(id)).length;
reduce
var total = selected.reduce((total, id) => total + (sample.includes(id) ? 1 : 0), 0);
for loop
var total = 0; for (const id of selected) { if (sample.includes(id)) { total++; } }