Regardless of functional differences, does using the new keywords 'let' and 'const' have any generalized or specific impact on performance relative to 'var'?
After running the program:
function timeit(f, N, S) {
var start, timeTaken;
var stats = {min: 1e50, max: 0, N: 0, sum: 0, sqsum: 0};
var i;
for (i = 0; i < S; ++i) {
start = Date.now();
f(N);
timeTaken = Date.now() - start;
stats.min = Math.min(timeTaken, stats.min);
stats.max = Math.max(timeTaken, stats.max);
stats.sum += timeTaken;
stats.sqsum += timeTaken * timeTaken;
stats.N++
}
var mean = stats.sum / stats.N;
var sqmean = stats.sqsum / stats.N;
return {min: stats.min, max: stats.max, mean: mean, spread: Math.sqrt(sqmean - mean * mean)};
}
var variable1 = 10;
var variable2 = 10;
var variable3 = 10;
var variable4 = 10;
var variable5 = 10;
var variable6 = 10;
var variable7 = 10;
var variable8 = 10;
var variable9 = 10;
var variable10 = 10;
function varAccess(N) {
var i, sum;
for (i = 0; i < N; ++i) {
sum += variable1;
sum += variable2;
sum += variable3;
sum += variable4;
sum += variable5;
sum += variable6;
sum += variable7;
sum += variable8;
sum += variable9;
sum += variable10;
}
return sum;
}
const constant1 = 10;
const constant2 = 10;
const constant3 = 10;
const constant4 = 10;
const constant5 = 10;
const constant6 = 10;
const constant7 = 10;
const constant8 = 10;
const constant9 = 10;
const constant10 = 10;
function constAccess(N) {
var i, sum;
for (i = 0; i < N; ++i) {
sum += constant1;
sum += constant2;
sum += constant3;
sum += constant4;
sum += constant5;
sum += constant6;
sum += constant7;
sum += constant8;
sum += constant9;
sum += constant10;
}
return sum;
}
function control(N) {
var i, sum;
for (i = 0; i < N; ++i) {
sum += 10;
sum += 10;
sum += 10;
sum += 10;
sum += 10;
sum += 10;
sum += 10;
sum += 10;
sum += 10;
sum += 10;
}
return sum;
}
console.log("ctl = " + JSON.stringify(timeit(control, 10000000, 50)));
console.log("con = " + JSON.stringify(timeit(constAccess, 10000000, 50)));
console.log("var = " + JSON.stringify(timeit(varAccess, 10000000, 50)));
.. My results were the following:
ctl = {"min":101,"max":117,"mean":108.34,"spread":4.145407097016924}
con = {"min":107,"max":572,"mean":435.7,"spread":169.4998820058587}
var = {"min":103,"max":608,"mean":439.82,"spread":176.44417700791374}
However discussion as noted here seems to indicate a real potential for performance differences under certain scenarios: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/performance-concern-with-let-const
TL;DR
In theory, an unoptimized version of this loop:
for (let i = 0; i < 500; ++i) {
doSomethingWith(i);
}
might be slower than an unoptimized version of the same loop with var:
for (var i = 0; i < 500; ++i) {
doSomethingWith(i);
}
because a different i variable is created for each loop iteration with let, whereas there's only one i with var.
Arguing against that is the fact the var is hoisted so it's declared outside the loop whereas the let is only declared within the loop, which may offer an optimization advantage.
In practice, here in 2018, modern JavaScript engines do enough introspection of the loop to know when it can optimize that difference away. (Even before then, odds are your loop was doing enough work that the additional let-related overhead was washed out anyway. But now you don't even have to worry about it.)
Beware synthetic benchmarks as they are extremely easy to get wrong, and trigger JavaScript engine optimizers in ways that real code doesn't (both good and bad ways). However, if you want a synthetic benchmark, here's one:
const now = typeof performance === "object" && performance.now
? performance.now.bind(performance)
: Date.now.bind(Date);
const btn = document.getElementById("btn");
btn.addEventListener("click", function() {
btn.disabled = true;
runTest();
});
const maxTests = 100;
const loopLimit = 50000000;
const expectedX = 1249999975000000;
function runTest(index = 1, results = {usingVar: 0, usingLet: 0}) {
console.log(`Running Test #${index} of ${maxTests}`);
setTimeout(() => {
const varTime = usingVar();
const letTime = usingLet();
results.usingVar += varTime;
results.usingLet += letTime;
console.log(`Test ${index}: var = ${varTime}ms, let = ${letTime}ms`);
++index;
if (index <= maxTests) {
setTimeout(() => runTest(index, results), 0);
} else {
console.log(`Average time with var: ${(results.usingVar / maxTests).toFixed(2)}ms`);
console.log(`Average time with let: ${(results.usingLet / maxTests).toFixed(2)}ms`);
btn.disabled = false;
}
}, 0);
}
function usingVar() {
const start = now();
let x = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < loopLimit; i++) {
x += i;
}
if (x !== expectedX) {
throw new Error("Error in test");
}
return now() - start;
}
function usingLet() {
const start = now();
let x = 0;
for (let i = 0; i < loopLimit; i++) {
x += i;
}
if (x !== expectedX) {
throw new Error("Error in test");
}
return now() - start;
}
<input id="btn" type="button" value="Start">
It says that there's no significant difference in that synthetic test on either V8/Chrome or SpiderMonkey/Firefox. (Repeated tests in both browsers have one winning, or the other winning, and in both cases within a margin of error.) But again, it's a synthetic benchmark, not your code. Worry about the performance of your code when and if your code has a performance problem.
As a style matter, I prefer let for the scoping benefit and the closure-in-loops benefit if I use the loop variable in a closure.
Details
The important difference between var and let in a for loop is that a different i is created for each iteration; it addresses the classic "closures in loop" problem:
function usingVar() {
for (var i = 0; i < 3; ++i) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("var's i: " + i);
}, 0);
}
}
function usingLet() {
for (let i = 0; i < 3; ++i) {
setTimeout(function() {
console.log("let's i: " + i);
}, 0);
}
}
usingVar();
setTimeout(usingLet, 20);
Creating the new EnvironmentRecord for each loop body (spec link) is work, and work takes time, which is why in theory the let version is slower than the var version.
But the difference only matters if you create a function (closure) within the loop that uses i, as I did in that runnable snippet example above. Otherwise, the distinction can't be observed and can be optimized away.
Here in 2018, it looks like V8 (and SpiderMonkey in Firefox) is doing sufficient introspection that there's no performance cost in a loop that doesn't make use of let's variable-per-iteration semantics. See this test.
In some cases, const may well provide an opportunity for optimization that var wouldn't, especially for global variables.
The problem with a global variable is that it's, well, global; any code anywhere could access it. So if you declare a variable with var that you never intend to change (and never do change in your code), the engine can't assume it's never going to change as the result of code loaded later or similar.
With const, though, you're explicitly telling the engine that the value cannot change¹. So it's free to do any optimization it wants, including emitting a literal instead of a variable reference to code using it, knowing that the values cannot be changed.
¹ Remember that with objects, the value is a reference to the object, not the object itself. So with const o = {}, you could change the state of the object (o.answer = 42), but you can't make o point to a new object (because that would require changing the object reference it contains).
When using let or const in other var-like situations, they're not likely to have different performance. This function should have exactly the same performance whether you use var or let, for instance:
function foo() {
var i = 0;
while (Math.random() < 0.5) {
++i;
}
return i;
}
It's all, of course, unlikely to matter and something to worry about only if and when there's a real problem to solve.
"LET" IS BETTER IN LOOP DECLARATIONS
With a simple test (5 times) in navigator like that:
// WITH VAR
console.time("var-time")
for(var i = 0; i < 500000; i++){}
console.timeEnd("var-time")
The mean time to execute is more than 2.5ms
// WITH LET
console.time("let-time")
for(let i = 0; i < 500000; i++){}
console.timeEnd("let-time")
The mean time to execute is more than 1.5ms
I found that loop time with let is better.
T.J. Crowder's answer is so excellent.
Here is an addition of: "When would I get the most bang for my buck on editing existing var declarations to const ?"
I've found that the most performance boost had to do with "exported" functions.
So if file A, B, R, and Z are calling on a "utility" function in file U that is commonly used through your app, then switching that utility function over to "const" and the parent file reference to a const can eak out some improved performance. It seemed for me that it wasn't measurably faster, but the overall memory consumption was reduced by about 1-3% for my grossly monolithic Frankenstein-ed app. Which if you're spending bags of cash on the cloud or your baremetal server, could be a good reason to spend 30 minutes to comb through and update some of those var declarations to const.
I realize that if you read into how const, var, and let work under the covers you probably already concluded the above... but in case you "glanced" over it :D.
From what I remember of the benchmarking on node v8.12.0 when I was making the update, my app went from idle consumption of ~240MB RAM to ~233MB RAM.
T.J. Crowder's answer is very good but :
'let' is made to make code more readable, not more powerful
by theory let will be slower than var
by practice the compiler can not solve completely (static analysis) an uncompleted program so sometime it will miss the optimization
in any-case using 'let' will require more CPU for introspection, the bench must be started when google v8 starts to parse
if introspection fails 'let' will push hard on the V8 garbage collector, it will require more iteration to free/reuse. it will also consume more RAM. the bench must take these points into account
Google Closure will transform let in var...
The effect of the performance gape between var and let can be seen in real-life complete program and not on a single basic loop.
Anyway, to use let where you don't have to, makes your code less readable.
Just did some more tests, Initially I concluded that there is a substantial difference in favor of var. My results initially showed that between Const / Let / Var there was a ratio from 4 / 4 / 1 to 3 / 3 / 1 in execution time.
After Edit in 29/01/2022 (according to jmrk's remark to remove global variables in let and const tests) now results seem similar 1 / 1 / 1.
I give the code used below. Just let me mention that I started from the code of AMN and did lots of tweaking, and editing.
I did the tests both in w3schools_tryit editor and in Google_scripts
My Notes:
In GoogleScripts there seems that the 1st test ALWAYS takes longer, no-matter which one, especially for reps<5.000.000 and before separating them in individual functions
For Reps < 5.000.000 JS engine optimizations are all that matters, results go up and down without safe conclusions
GoogleScripts constantly does ~1.5x time longer, I think it is expected
There was a BIG difference when all tests where separated in individual functions, execution speed was at-least doubled and 1st test's delay almost vanished!
Please don't judge the code, I did try but don't pretend to be any expert in JS.
I would be delighted to see your tests and opinions.
function mytests(){
var start = 0;
var tm1=" Const: ", tm2=" Let: ", tm3=" Var: ";
start = Date.now();
tstLet();
tm2 += Date.now() - start;
start = Date.now();
tstVar();
tm3 += Date.now() - start;
start = Date.now();
tstConst();
tm1 += (Date.now() - start);
var result = "TIMERS:" + tm1 + tm2 + tm3;
console.log(result);
return result;
}
// with VAR
function tstVar(){
var lmtUp = 50000000;
var i=0;
var item = 2;
var sum = 0;
for(i = 0; i < lmtUp; i++){sum += item;}
item = sum / 1000;
}
// with LET
function tstLet(){
let lmtUp = 50000000;
let j=0;
let item = 2;
let sum=0;
for( j = 0; j < lmtUp; j++){sum += item;}
item = sum/1000;
}
// with CONST
function tstConst(){
const lmtUp = 50000000;
var k=0;
const item = 2;
var sum=0;
for( k = 0; k < lmtUp; k++){sum += item;}
k = sum / 1000;
}
code with 'let' will be more optimized than 'var' as variables declared with var do not get cleared when the scope expires but variables declared with let does. so var uses more space as it makes different versions when used in a loop.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Why is using "for...in" for array iteration a bad idea?
(28 answers)
Closed last month.
I have worked out two ways of calculating the same thing in my JavaScript. I just wonder which is more efficient in terms of memory usage and processing power:
AveragePL = netArray.reduce((sum,arr) => sum + arr, 0);
or
for (let index in netArray) {
AveragePL = AveragePL + netArray[index];
}
I realise I could do AveragePL += netArray[index] but I am new to JS, so I am using the full form so that I know what is going on for a moment.
reduce is more efficent than for iterations
u can take a look at here Why you should use reduce instead of loops
It would actually depend on the implementation of the JS engine.
Additionally there are different types of for loops for..in, for..of and the classic for
The classic for is the most optimized so it will blow all others out of the water in most implementations, including the reduce approach which has to execute a function for each iteration.
for (let i = 0, len = netArray.len; i < len; i++){
AveragePL = AveragePL + netArray[i];
}
In firefox you can see the the following extended benchmark.
See https://jsben.ch/xU8Nd
Using the version of node available to me, it seems that reduce is quite a bit faster. Times are in milliseconds.
node benchmark.js
reduce 3.5796960592269897
for-loop 16.456849932670593
node -v
v14.19.1
const { performance } = require("perf_hooks");
function benchmark(label, fn) {
const t0 = performance.now();
fn();
const t1 = performance.now();
console.log(label, t1 - t0);
}
let netArray = Array.from({ length: 100000 }, () => Math.random());
benchmark("reduce", function() {
netArray.reduce((sum, arr) => sum + arr, 0);
});
benchmark("for-loop", function() {
let AveragePL = 0;
for (let index in netArray) {
AveragePL = AveragePL + netArray[index];
}
});
The .reduce() is much faster than a loop, a reduce is always preferred over a loop if you can. Here is a test of an array of 1'000 items, repeating 10'000 times:
const netArray = Array.from(Array(1000).keys());
let start = new Date();
let sumReduce;
for(let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
sumReduce = netArray.reduce((sum,arr) => sum + arr, 0);
}
let timeReduce = new Date() - start;
start = new Date();
let sumLoop;
for(let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
sumLoop = 0;
for(let index in netArray) {
sumLoop += netArray[index];
}
}
let timeLoop = new Date() - start;
console.log({
sumReduce: sumReduce,
timeReduce: timeReduce,
sumLoop: sumLoop,
timeLoop: timeLoop
});
Output:
{
"sumReduce": 499500,
"timeReduce": 77,
"sumLoop": 499500,
"timeLoop": 971
}
Times are in msec.
I'm working on a very performance critical part of a browser game and was just splitting apart a big pile of code into more manageable chunks but it seems that I'm paying a pretty serious (~40% in total) performance loss for these extra function calls.
At first I figured that V8 just doesn't do inlining upon compilation but then I tried out this little test:
const nn = 1000000000;
(()=>{
var t = Date.now();
var total = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < nn; i++) {
total += i;
}
console.log(total, Date.now() - t);
})();
(()=>{
var t = Date.now();
var total = 0;
function useless() {}
for (var i = 0; i < nn; i++) {
total += i;
useless();useless();useless();
}
console.log(total, Date.now() - t);
})();
(new class {
useless() {}
test() {
var t = Date.now();
var total = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < nn; i++) {
total += i;
this.useless();this.useless();this.useless();
}
console.log(total, Date.now() - t);
}
}).test();
And in each case, I get an identical result, useless function calls or not. That tells me that there is practically no cost for a useless function call.
Yet in my real code, adding useless function calls incurs a very real penalty for each added, for example in
add_expected_length(v) {
this.set_block_raw(); // <- this is the useless one
while (v > 127) { this.buffer.push((v & 127) + 128); v = Math.trunc(v / 128); }
this.buffer.push(v);
}
even if set_block_raw method is empty, adding it there makes the whole algorithm 5% slower, add two in a row and its 7%, three is 9% and on and on, it seems to scale almost linearly with each useless call added I get a 1-2% performance decrease.
Now if I break my class apart and start examining individual calls, isolating pieces of code here and there the problem goes away, the useless call is ignored but trying to figure out what is wrong in this huge inter-dependent algorithm like that would just take forever.
This seems very bizarre to me and I really want to dig into what V8 generates to see what is causing this. Is there a way to peer behind the js and see what chrome and V8 actually does with it?
I am learning javascript to enhance some of my daily work, and so I am learning the basics.
I am still pretty green with the syntax, but am picking up on the language pretty quickly.
What I am trying to understand is how i can create a terminating condition that is evaluating a function.
I know the coding is wrong here, which is what I am trying to fix - I attempted a bunch of different things, but I am having trouble evaluating the loop based on my product.
I tried using return to store the value each iteration, but every attempt resulted in the script flat out failing.
What I want the script to do is to stop the loop when my product reaches <=100.
The problem is, my research suggests that the loop criteria can ONLY be referencing the variable, i.
I'm stuck in terms of how to look at the resulting product as the terminating condition.
var one = 5;
var two = 10;
var end = 100;
function mult (one, two) {
var product = one * two;
document.writeln(product + "<br>");
}
for (var i = 1; i <= end; i++)
mult(i, two);
If you want your loop to terminate when the product is <= 100, use an if statement to decide whether you want to write a line.
I've changed some variable names to make it easier to understand.
/*var one = 5;*/ /*This is never being used*/
var ten = 10;
var end = 100;
function mult (a, b){
var product = a * b;
if (product <= 100){
document.writeln(product + "<br>");
}
}
for (var i = 1; i <= end; i++){
mult(i, ten);
}
"the loop criteria can ONLY be referencing the variable, i." that's false!
You can define multiple conditions in a for loop.
To access the 'product' variable after loop execution you can declare it in the outer scope of the mult() function (or you can rewrite the mult() function to returns the product variable).
Like this:
var two = 10;
var end = 100;
var someNumberGtThan100 = 100000;
var lastProduct = 0;
var product = 0;
function mult (one, two) {
lastProduct = product;
product = one * two;
document.writeln(product + "<br>");
}
for (var i = 1; i <= someNumberGtThan100 && product <= 100; i++) {
mult(i, two);
}
console.log(lastProduct); // 100
By using this condition you have to store the previous value in an auxiliary variable, because when 'product' reach the value of 100 the loop condition is still true, so the loop will be executed one time more.
I have created an utterly simple blackjack game that stores the first value of a shuffled array of cards into corresponding players' arrays, dealing them as actual hands. For some odd reason, I can't seem to find a way to execute the core part of the code multiple times without getting an infinite loop. For the time being, I have only tried running the quite commonplace "for" command which is meant for multiple statements, but just doesn't seem to work here.
The programm on its primitive form is as follows...
var dealerCards = [];
var playerCards = [];
var firstDeck = [];
function shuffle(o){
for(var j, x, i = o.length; i; j = Math.floor(Math.random() * i), x = o[--i], o[i] = o[j], o[j] = x);
return o;
}
function createShuffledDeckNumber(array, x) {
for (i = 0; i < 4*x; i++) {
array.push(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13);
}
shuffle(array);
}
function drawCard(playersHand, playerSoft, playerHard) {
playersHand.push(firstDeck[0]);
firstDeck.shift();
}
function checkDeckDrawOne(playersHand) {
if (firstDeck.length === 0) {
createShuffledDeckNumber(firstDeck, 1);
drawCard(playersHand);
}else{
for (i = 0; i < 1; i++) {
drawCard(playersHand);
}
}
}
for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
dealerCards = [];
playerCards = [];
checkDeckDrawOne(dealerCards);
checkDeckDrawOne(dealerCards);
checkDeckDrawOne(playerCards);
checkDeckDrawOne(playerCards);
console.log("dealerCards",dealerCards,"playerCards",playerCards);
console.log("firstDeckDrawn", firstDeck, "Number", firstDeck.length);
}
Additional Notes;
The presumed objective could be performing calculations to figure out the winner by imitating the effect of consecutive computing rounds based on a finite number of values stored in each player's array. Although, I've tried a seried of different things when it comes to emulating the real life circumstances of actually playing blackjack, this version seems to do just that, by also giving the programmer the ability to introduce counting systems like KO or HiLo. The main logic behind the whole thing is fairly simple; order x shuffled decks whenever a command that involves drawing a card is being executed unless the deck has at least one card.
It's rather fair to ponder why should I possibly bother creating multiple rounds in such a game. Reason is, that I want to create an autoplayer application that provides me with percentages on processed data.
Your variable i in function checkDeckDrawOne() has global scope, meaning it alters the value of i in the main loop:
for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
dealerCards = [];
playerCards = [];
checkDeckDrawOne(dealerCards);
checkDeckDrawOne(dealerCards);
checkDeckDrawOne(playerCards);
checkDeckDrawOne(playerCards);
console.log("dealerCards",dealerCards,"playerCards",playerCards);
console.log("firstDeckDrawn", firstDeck, "Number", firstDeck.length);
}
Change this:
for (i = 0; i < 1; i++) {
drawCard(playersHand);
}
to this:
for (var i = 0; i < 1; i++) {
drawCard(playersHand);
}
although why you need a loop here anyway is baffling.
My Javascript timer is for people with a rubiks cube with generates a scramble (nevermind all this, but just to tell you I'm generating after each solve a new scramble will be generated) and my scrambles do actually have a while (true) statement. So that does crash my script, but it 95/100 times stops just before the script crashes but I don't wanna have any times.
Let me explain a bit more detailed about the problem.
Problem: javascript crashes because my script takes too long to generate a scramble.
Below you have 3 functions I use.
This function generates a scramble with the Fisher-Yates shuffle.
Timer.prototype.generateScramble = function(array) {
for (var i = array.length - 1; i > 0; i--) {
var j = Math.floor(Math.random() * (i + 1));
var temp = array[i];
array[i] = array[j];
array[j] = temp;
}
return array;
};
This function validates the input e.g. I receive an array as the following:
Here I only have to check the first character. That's why I use the seconds [ ] notation. I don't want people get an F with an F2 e.g.
var scr = ["F","R","U","B","L","D","F2","R2","U2","B2","L2","D2","F'","R'","U'","B'","L'","D'"]
Timer.prototype.validateScramble2 = function(array) {
var last = array.length-1;
for (var i = 0; i < array.length-1; i++) {
if (array[i][0] == array[i+1][0]) {
return false;
}
}
for (var i = 0; i < array.length-2; i++) {
if (array[i][0] == array[i+2][0]) {
return false;
}
}
if (array[0][0] == [last][0]) {
return false;
}
return true;
};
The above functions are just waiting to be called. Well in the function below I use them.
Timer.prototype.updateScramble2 = function(scrambleArr, len, type) {
var self = this;
var scramble = '', j, updatedArr = [];
while (updatedArr.length < len) {
j = (Math.floor(Math.random() * scrambleArr.length));
updatedArr.push(scrambleArr[j]);
}
while (!self.validateScramble2(updatedArr)) {
updatedArr = self.generateScramble(updatedArr);
}
for (var i = 0; i < updatedArr.length; i++) {
scramble += updatedArr[i] + ' ';
}
scrambleDiv.innerHTML = scramble;
};
I assume you guys understand it but let me explain it briefly.
The first while-loop adds a random value from the given array(scrambleArr) into a new array called updatedArr.
The next while-loop calls the validateScramble2() function if there isn't in an array F next to an F2.
The for-loop adds them into a new variable added with a whitespace and then later we show the scramble in the div: scrambleDiv.innerHTML = scramble;
What do I need know after all this information?
Well I wanna know why my updateScramble2() functions lets my browser crash every time and what I do wrong and how I should do it.
I'm not entirely sure I understand the question, but from the way your code looks, I think you have an infinite loop going on. It appears as if validateScramble2 always returns false which causes your second loop in updateScramble2 to perpetually run.
I suggest you insert a breakpoint in your code and inspect the values. You could also insert debugger; statements in your code, works the same way. Open dev tools prior to doing these.
A suggestion is instead of using loops, use a timer. This breaks up your loop into asynchronous iterations rather than synchronous. This allows the browser breathing space for other operations. Here's an example of a forEachAsync:
function forEachAsync(array, callback){
var i = 0;
var timer = setInterval(function(){
callback.call(null, array[i]);
if(++i >= array.length) clearInterval(timer);
}, 0);
}
forEachAsync([1,2,4], function(item){
console.log(item);
});
You can take this further and use Promises instead of callbacks.