Let\'s imagine we should get some data...
var data = [];
//some code omitted that might fill in the data (though might not)
Then we need t
I don't think it's worth checking whether to execute the for
loop based on the length
of data
as it probably won't make much difference performance-wise if the for
loop is only executed a few times.
But generally it is faster to get the length first rather than putting it as i
Here's the results for the following benchmarks (the fastest indicated by + and slowest indicated by -):
FF Chrome Safari Opera IE6 IE7 IE8 Method 1 +0.163+ 0.221 0.246 0.269 -11.608- -12.214- -7.657- Method 2 0.175 +0.133+ 0.176 +0.147+ 8.474 8.752 3.267 Method 3 0.206 0.235 0.276 0.245 8.002 8.539 3.651 Method 4 0.198 0.372 0.447 0.390 +6.562+ +7.020+ 2.920 Method 5 0.206 0.372 0.445 -0.400- 6.626 7.096 +2.905+ Method 6 0.176 0.167 +0.175+ 0.223 7.029 8.085 3.167 Method 7 -0.263- -0.567- -0.449- 0.413 6.925 7.431 3.242
Method 1: Using "standard" for
loops:
for (var i=0; i
Method 2: Using "standard" for
loops, assigning length
so it doesn't have to access each time:
for (var i=0, len=data.length; i
Method 3: This is similar to the method jQuery uses in $.each()
. Note the assigning to len
so that it doesn't have to get the length
every time.
for (var x=data[0], len=data.length, i=0; i
Method 4: Using while
loops, going forwards. WARNING: needs each item in the array to evaluate to true
, i.e. not false
, 0
, null
, undefined
, ''
etc!
var x, i=0
while (x = data[i++]) {}
Method 5: The same as method 4, only using for
to do the same:
for (var x,i=0; x=data[i++];) {}
Method 6: Looping through the loop backwards using while
:
var i = data.length
while (i--) {
var x = data[i]
}
Method 7: Using method 4/method 5, but without needing items to evaluate to true
, replacing x = data[i++]
:
var x, i=0, len=data.length
while ((x=data[i++]) || i
This first checks whether data[i++]
evaluates to true
then checks whether it's the last item so it can have similar performance in IE with fewer problems with null
and false
etc in the arrays. Note that when using while
vs for
in this case there wasn't a noticeable difference, but I prefer while
as I think it's more clear.
I generally don't like to optimize unless there's a specific long-running task as it often comes at a cost of readability - please only do it if you've got a specific case where you've got lots of data to load etc :-)
EDIT: Because methods 4/5 were so fast on IE, added a version with fewer side effects.
EDIT 2: Redid all of the tests, this time without any browser extensions and over a longer period of time. Here's the code for the sake of completeness (sorry for making this post so long:)
function Tmr() {
this.tStart = new Date()
}
Tmr.prototype = {
Time: function() {
var tDate = new Date()
var tDiff = tDate.getTime() - this.tStart.getTime()
var tDiff = tDiff / 1000.0 // Convert to seconds
return tDiff
}
}
function normalfor(data) {
for (var i=0; i