This blog post is about comparing the running times of the most commonly used ways to loop through an array in JavaScript in order to see which one is the most efficient. The tests The idea is very simple. I compared the running times of five very common ways ( , , , , ) of looping through an array using an array of 100 values and another array of 10 million values. The code used was run in a Node.js runtime environment version 16.14.0 inside a Ubuntu 20 laptop. map forEach for while do while Testing the .map() method Here is the code used for an array of 100 values const arraySize = 100;

const arrayToTest = Array(arraySize)
  .fill(0)
  .map((_, i) => i);

// small code to warm up the process used 
for (let index = 0; index < arrayToTest; index++) {
  index * index + Math.sqrt(item);
}

console.time("map");
arrayToTest.map((item, index) => {
  return (arrayToTest[index] = item * item + Math.sqrt(item));
});
console.timeEnd("map"); Here is the result I got from the above code : map: 0.150ms For an array of 10 million values, I used the same code as above while just replacing the constant with 10000000. Here is the result I got : arraySize map: 1865.563ms Testing the .forEach() method Here is the code used for an array of 100 values const arraySize = 100;

const arrayToTest = Array(arraySize)
  .fill(0)
  .map((_, i) => i);

// small code to warm up the process used 
for (let index = 0; index < arrayToTest; index++) {
  index * index + Math.sqrt(item);
}

console.time("forEach");
arrayToTest.forEach((item, index) => {
  return (arrayToTest[index] = item * item + Math.sqrt(item));
});
console.timeEnd("forEach"); Here is the result I got from the above code : forEach: 0.137ms For an array of 10 million values, I used the same code as above while just replacing the constant with 10000000. Here is the result I got : arraySize forEach: 1201.149ms Testing the for loop Here is the code used for an array of 100 values const arraySize = 100;

const arrayToTest = Array(arraySize)
  .fill(0)
  .map((_, i) => i);

// small code to warm up the process used 
for (let index = 0; index < arrayToTest; index++) {
  index * index + Math.sqrt(item);
}

console.time("for");
for (let i = 0; i < arrayToTest.length; i++) {
  arrayToTest[i] = arrayToTest[i] * arrayToTest[i] + Math.sqrt(arrayToTest[i]);
}
console.timeEnd("for"); Here is the result I got from the above code : for: 0.127ms For an array of 10 million values, I used the same code as above while just replacing the constant with 10000000. Here is the result I got : arraySize for: 109.778ms Testing the while loop Here is the code used for an array of 100 values const arraySize = 100;

const arrayToTest = Array(arraySize)
  .fill(0)
  .map((_, i) => i);

// small code to warm up the process used 
for (let index = 0; index < arrayToTest; index++) {
  index * index + Math.sqrt(item);
}

console.time("while");
let i = 0;
while (i < arrayToTest.length) {
  arrayToTest[i] =
    arrayToTest[i] * arrayToTest[i] + Math.sqrt(arrayToTest[i]);
  i++;
}
console.timeEnd("while"); Here is the result I got from the above code : while: 0.294ms For an array of 10 million values, I used the same code as above while just replacing the constant with 10000000. Here is the result I got : arraySize while: 108.698ms Testing the do…while loop Here is the code used for an array of 100 values const arraySize = 100;

const arrayToTest = Array(arraySize)
  .fill(0)
  .map((_, i) => i);

// small code to warm up the process used 
for (let index = 0; index < arrayToTest; index++) {
  index * index + Math.sqrt(item);
}

console.time("do while");
let i = 0;
do {
  arrayToTest[i] = arrayToTest[i] * arrayToTest[i] + Math.sqrt(arrayToTest[i]);
  i++;
} while (i < arrayToTest.length);
console.timeEnd("do while"); Here is the result I got from the above code : do while: 0.118ms For an array of 10 million values, I used the same code as above while just replacing the constant with 10000000. Here is the result I got : arraySize do while: 124.894ms Summary For the array with 100 values, here are the results I got map: 0.150ms
forEach: 0.137ms
for: 0.127ms
while: 0.120ms
do while: 0.118ms For the second array with 10 millions values, here are the results I got map: 1865.563ms
forEach: 1201.149ms
for: 109.778ms
while: 145.869ms
do while: 124.894ms In small arrays, the optimization work done by the V8 engine while compiling our JavaScript code is good enough and the running times of the methods tested above are very close. In big arrays, and take much more time (more than eleven times as shown in this example) than the other methods. One factor causing this additional time is invoking callback functions which consume more memory and therefore add more performance costs in big arrays. or have very close running times in big arrays and it is difficult to say, at least from the examples above, that one is radically faster than the others in big arrays. Additional tests are needed in that sense to determine which method is the most efficient. map() forEach() for while do while Conclusion Whenever we have to write a loop, it is important to consider what solution works best. In relatively small arrays, the optimization work done by the V8 engine is good enough. However, when processing a large amount of data, then the performance cost might be important if we don’t carefully choose the most efficient solution and the running time then might be, eleven times more in some cases as shown in the results above. Performance is not the only thing that matters. Code readability and maintainability are also very important when writing code in any programming language. You can check I wrote on how to write clean code for JavaScript developers. a previous article If this post was helpful to you, please don't hesitate to share it. You can also follow if you would like to see more content related to web programming. my Twitter account

Twitter

2022 - HackerNoon Contributor of the Year - Clean Code

2022 - HackerNoon Contributor of the Year - Django

2022 - HackerNoon Contributor of the Year - Typescript

2022 - Software Developer of the Year

Nominated for 2022 - HackerNoon Contributor of the Year - Typescript

Nominated for 2022 - HackerNoon Contributor of the Year - Clean Code

Nominated for 2022 - Software Developer of the Year

Nominated for 2022 - HackerNoon Contributor of the Year - Software Engineering

Nominated for 2022 - HackerNoon Contributor of the Year - Django

Portfolio

Too Long; Didn't Read

In your car, at home, or at work — Bosch technology shapes many areas of life.

Performance Tests on Common JavaScript Array Methods

Performance Tests on Common JavaScript Array Methods

Too Long; Didn't Read

Company Mentioned

Ismail Tlemcani

About Author

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN...

Performance Tests on Common JavaScript Array Methods

Too Long; Didn't Read

Company Mentioned

Ismail Tlemcani

About Author

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN...

RELATED STORIES