Benchmark: const in a for loop

Script Preparation code:

var people = [{name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}, {name: 'a', age:1}]

Tests:

using const in for
const morePeople = []; for (const p of people){ morePeople.push(p); }
simple normal usage
const morePeople = []; for (p of people){ morePeople.push(p); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
using const in for
simple normal usage

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

ⓘ Get performance results from real users on your website with Request Metrics.

Website Performance Monitoring by Request Metrics

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 22 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
using const in for	16596180.0 Ops/sec
simple normal usage	643309.4 Ops/sec

const in a for loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: using const in for vs simple normal usage

Created: 22 days ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

using const in for

simple normal usage

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A