Benchmark: && vs || - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var a = 5, b = 4;

Tests:

&&
var c = a < 6 && b < 5
||
var d = a > 5 || b > 5

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
&&
\|\|

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, compared, and the pros and cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test measures the performance difference between two logical operators in JavaScript: `&&` (logical AND) and `||` (logical OR). The script defines three variables: `a`, `b`, and `c`, with values 5, 4, and an unknown value, respectively. The test cases evaluate expressions involving these variables.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition JSON contains two key pieces of information:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This section is empty, which means the script doesn't perform any setup or initialization before running the test.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: Also empty, indicating that no HTML code needs to be executed before running the test.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. `&&` (Logical AND)
	* Benchmark Definition: `var c = a < 6 && b < 5`
	* Description: This expression will evaluate to true if both conditions are met, i.e., `a` is less than 6 and `b` is less than 5.
2. `||` (Logical OR)
	* Benchmark Definition: `var d = a > 5 || b > 5`
	* Description: This expression will evaluate to true if either condition is met, i.e., `a` is greater than 5 or `b` is greater than 5.

**Library and Special JS Features**

None are explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that JavaScript engines might optimize certain expressions differently due to features like:

* Short-circuit evaluation: Some engines may evaluate the second operand of a binary expression (e.g., `a < 6 && b`) only if the first operand is true.
* Lazy evaluation: Engines might delay evaluating an expression until its value is actually needed.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief comparison of the two operators:

| Operator | Pros | Cons |
| --- | --- | --- |
| `&&` (Logical AND) | Can be more efficient for conditional checks, as it short-circuits evaluation if the first operand is false. | May lead to slower performance if both operands need to be evaluated. |
| `||` (Logical OR) | Can be faster for expressions where at least one operand needs to be evaluated. | Can lead to slower performance if neither operand is needed, as it may still evaluate both. |

**Latest Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show that:

* `||` (Logical OR) is slightly faster than `&&` (Logical AND), with approximately 6278680 executions per second compared to 6263372.

Keep in mind that these results are specific to Chrome 91 on a Windows desktop and may not be representative of other browsers, platforms, or scenarios.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in testing other logical operators or expressions, you can explore the MeasureThat.net website and create new benchmarks. Some alternative options might include:

* Testing other comparison operators (e.g., `===`, `!==`, `>`, `<`, etc.)
* Evaluating arithmetic expressions
* Comparing string concatenation vs. template literals
* Assessing performance of different array methods (e.g., `push`, `splice`, `indexOf`, etc.)

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/91.0.4472.124 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
&&	6263372.0 Ops/sec
\|\|	6278680.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

&& vs || (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: && vs ||

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

&&

||

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):