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

Run details:

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:129.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/129.0

Browser: Firefox 129

Operating system: Windows

Device Platform: Desktop

Date tested: one year ago

for loop

164K/s

reduce

164K/s

filter().length

163K/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++; } }