Benchmark: Empty vs check - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

const a = {
    exists() {

    }
}

function check() {
    if (a.not_exists) {
        a.not_exists();
    }
}

function empty() {
    a.exists();
}

Tests:

Check test
check()
empty test
empty()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Check test
empty test

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to handle cases where a property does not exist in an object: using a `check()` function that throws an error if the property is missing, and using an empty (`empty()`) function that simply calls `exists()` even if the property doesn't exist.

**Options Compared**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **`check()`**: This approach checks if the `not_exists` property exists before calling it. If it doesn't exist, an error is thrown.
2. **`empty()`**: This approach ignores the existence of the `not_exists` property and calls `exists()` regardless.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`check()`**:
	+ Pros: Ensures that the function will not attempt to call a non-existent method, preventing potential errors or crashes.
	+ Cons: Throws an error if the property doesn't exist, which may be unexpected behavior.
* **`empty()`**:
	+ Pros: Allows the function to execute even if the property doesn't exist, potentially improving performance by avoiding unnecessary checks.
	+ Cons: May lead to unexpected behavior or errors if the function relies on the existence of the property.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it appears that JavaScript's built-in `Object.prototype` methods are being used (e.g., `exists()`, `not_exists()`).

**JavaScript Syntax**

The test uses a few advanced JavaScript features:

* **Arrow functions**: The `check()` and `empty()` functions use arrow function syntax (`=>`).
* **Template literals**: The `Script Preparation Code` uses template literals (`\r\n`) to define the object `a`.
* **ES6 features**: The benchmark definition and test cases use ES6+ syntax (e.g., `const`, `let`, arrow functions, etc.).

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to implement this benchmark yourself, you might consider using other approaches, such as:

* Using a more explicit null check instead of relying on the existence of a property.
* Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js that provides utility functions for working with objects and arrays.
* Optimizing the `empty()` approach by using a technique called "method chaining" to avoid creating unnecessary intermediate objects.

Keep in mind that the benchmark is designed to compare specific performance characteristics, so you might not need to consider these alternatives unless you're looking to implement similar benchmarks or optimize your own code.

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/91.0.4472.106 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Check test	12819871.0 Ops/sec
empty test	12915795.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Empty vs check (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Check test vs empty test

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Check test

empty test

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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