# loop-over-inclusive-range-test

**Repository Path**: tinusgraglin/loop-over-inclusive-range-test

## Basic Information

- **Project Name**: loop-over-inclusive-range-test
- **Description**: Testing methods to loop over an inclusive range in Rust.
- **Primary Language**: Unknown
- **License**: Not specified
- **Default Branch**: master
- **Homepage**: None
- **GVP Project**: No

## Statistics

- **Stars**: 0
- **Forks**: 0
- **Created**: 2024-01-06
- **Last Updated**: 2024-01-06

## Categories & Tags

**Categories**: Uncategorized

**Tags**: None

## README

# Introduction

This is my simple benchmark comparing different methods to loop over an inclusive
number range:

1. `for i in 0..=n`
2. `for i in MyRangeInclusiveIter`, the implemention of `MyRangeInclusiveIter::next` is
   simply the implemention of `RangeInclusive::next` without the `start > end` check.
3. A loop expansion of 2, somehow its performance is very much different from 2.
4. `while i < n` loop with manual `i == n` case.
5. Manual `i == 0` case and then loop the rest.
6. `(0..=n).for_each`
7. `(0..=n).fold`

# Last Result

```
test sum_of_all_good_bench_1 ... bench:     723,901 ns/iter (+/- 18,071)
test sum_of_all_good_bench_2 ... bench:     244,559 ns/iter (+/- 7,255)
test sum_of_all_good_bench_3 ... bench:     828,042 ns/iter (+/- 23,165)
test sum_of_all_good_bench_4 ... bench:     244,446 ns/iter (+/- 14,579)
test sum_of_all_good_bench_5 ... bench:     279,080 ns/iter (+/- 2,750)
test sum_of_all_good_bench_6 ... bench:     209,503 ns/iter (+/- 23,394)
test sum_of_all_good_bench_7 ... bench:     246,574 ns/iter (+/- 10,524)
```

# Conclusion

Uses `for_each` or `fold` when looping over an inclusive range.