Benchmark: Equality check - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var a = 1; var b=1; var finalValue;

Tests:

Equality check
for (var x = 0; x<10000; x++) { finalValue = a == b; }
Bitwise Check
for (var x = 0; x<10000; x++) { finalValue = (a^b) == 0; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Equality check
Bitwise Check

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/55.0.2883.87 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 55 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Equality check	432.2 Ops/sec
Bitwise Check	437.3 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches for equality checks: normal equal check and bitwise check. Both tests aim to measure how fast each method can perform 10,000 iterations of comparing two identical values (`a` and `b`) with a final result stored in `finalValue`.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Normal Equal Check**: This approach uses the equality operator (`==`) to compare `a` and `b`. The result is then assigned to `finalValue`.
2. **Bitwise Check**: This approach uses bitwise operations to check if `a` and `b` have any bits in common. Specifically, it checks if `a^b` equals 0.

**Pros and Cons**

**Normal Equal Check:**

Pros:

* Widely supported and well-understood by most developers.
* Easy to implement and understand.

Cons:

* Can be slower than bitwise operations due to the overhead of comparing values using `==`.

**Bitwise Check:**

Pros:

* Often faster than normal equal checks due to the optimized nature of bitwise operations.
* Can be more efficient, especially for small integer values.

Cons:

* Less well-supported and understood by some developers, particularly those without a background in computer science or low-level programming.
* May require additional effort to implement correctly.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the `finalValue` variable is used, which implies that it might be defined elsewhere in the script being tested. Without further context, it's difficult to determine what this variable represents or how its scope is managed.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The benchmark doesn't appear to use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the basic `==` operator for equality checks and bitwise operations.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for measuring performance might include:

* Using a more modern equality comparison method, such as using `===` (strict equality) or `!=`.
* Employing caching mechanisms to reduce repeated comparisons.
* Utilizing parallel processing techniques to take advantage of multiple CPU cores.
* Measuring the impact of different JavaScript engine optimizations, such as Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative will depend on the specific use case and requirements of the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Equality check (version: 0)

bitwise check and normal equal check diff

Comparing performance of: Equality check vs Bitwise Check

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Equality check

Bitwise Check

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 months ago):