Benchmark: Const test - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Many const
const anime = 6; const cartoons = 'hell'; const papahelp = null; const help = false; const fal = 534904385034;
one const
const anime = 6, cartoons = 'hell', papahelp = null, help = false, fal = 534904385034;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Many const
one const

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/89.0.4389.114 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 89 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Many const	917248896.0 Ops/sec
one const	919962240.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark test and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two JavaScript microbenchmarks, each with multiple test cases. The benchmarks are designed to measure the performance of various JavaScript features related to constants.

In the first benchmark definition, there are five variables defined: `anime`, `cartoons`, `papahelp`, `help`, and `fal`. Each variable has a different data type: number, string, null, boolean, and integer. The script preparation code is empty, indicating that no setup or initialization is required.

**Options compared**

The two benchmark test cases are:

1. "Many const"
	* Defines all five variables with their respective data types.
2. "one const"
	* Defines only three variables: `anime`, `cartoons`, and `fal` (with its integer value). The variable `help` is not defined, while `papahelp` is set to null.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

1. **"Many const"**
	+ Pros:
		- Verifies the correct behavior with all variables defined.
		- Helps catch issues related to multiple constant declarations.
	+ Cons:
		- May introduce unnecessary overhead due to more variable assignments.
2. **"one const"**
	* Pros:
		- Reduces overhead by only assigning values to a subset of variables.
		- Allows for isolation testing of specific code paths.
	+ Cons:
		- May not cover all possible scenarios, such as variable declarations with side effects.

**Library usage**

None of the benchmark definitions explicitly use any libraries. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines might optimize or execute certain library functions differently depending on the presence or absence of specific variables.

**Special JS features and syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in these benchmarks. The tests only verify basic constant declaration behavior.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to modify or extend this benchmark, some alternative test cases could include:

* Using `let` instead of `const` for variable declarations.
* Including more complex data types, such as objects or arrays.
* Adding side effects to the variable assignments (e.g., modifying external state).
* Testing performance with different types of constants, like `var` vs. `const`.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require adjustments to the benchmark definitions and test cases to accurately measure their impact on performance.

Related benchmarks:

Const test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Many const vs one const

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Many const

one const

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):