3 ms·
I just tried it. With 10M entries in the array, the "slow" way takes 509 ms and the "faster" way takes 362 ms. So we can save roughly 15 nanoseconds per itera
by asher 17y ago
I just tried it.
With 10M entries in the array, the "slow" way takes 509 ms and the "faster" way takes 362 ms. So we can save roughly 15 nanoseconds per iteration. Or a 30% speedup - assuming nothing happens inside the loop.
(Of course the numbers may vary wildly per browser.)
Somehow I doubt this is the performance problem behind slow web pages.
- brown9-2 17y agoAgreed - which makes pointing this out as the first problem in a "gee Google can't write JavaScript article" seems a bit overblown.