Benchmark: acasoveramente - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

c = {a: 'ciao'}

Tests:

undefined
c.a === undefined
Boolean
c.a === false

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
undefined
Boolean

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/91.0.4472.124 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
undefined	2674027.5 Ops/sec
Boolean	5430173.0 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 help you understand what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by a JSON object that contains the following information:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which is "acasoveramente".
* `Description`: An empty string, indicating no description for this benchmark.
* `Script Preparation Code`: A script that initializes an object `c` with a single property `a` set to the string `'ciao'`.
* `Html Preparation Code`: An empty string, indicating no HTML preparation code is needed.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. `undefined`
	* The benchmark definition uses the expression `c.a === undefined`.
2. `Boolean`
	* The benchmark definition uses the expression `c.a === false`.

These expressions are being tested to measure how fast JavaScript can evaluate them.

**Libraries and Special Features**

There is no library used in this benchmark, so no additional dependencies or considerations related to libraries are applicable.

However, it's worth noting that the expressions use some basic JavaScript syntax:

* The `===` operator is used for strict equality checks.
* The dot notation (`c.a`) is used to access a property of an object.
* No special features like async/await, try-catch blocks, or arrow functions are used in these test cases.

**Comparison and Pro Cons**

The two test cases compare the performance of evaluating `undefined` vs. `false` using the same syntax (`===`). The pros and cons of these approaches are:

Pros of `c.a === undefined`:

* Simplistic expression that only checks if `a` is not present in the object.
* May be faster since it's a simple property check.

Cons of `c.a === undefined`:

* May be slower than checking for `false`, as it requires accessing the object's properties.
* Less relevant in real-world scenarios where evaluating `undefined` may have different implications.

Pros of `c.a === false`:

* More common and relevant scenario, as `false` is a more frequent value in many use cases.
* May be faster since it's a simple boolean check.

Cons of `c.a === false`:

* Requires accessing the object's properties, which may incur some overhead.

**Other Alternatives**

Some other alternatives to measure this performance could include:

* Using a different data structure, like an array or a set, instead of an object.
* Introducing noise or variations in the input values to simulate real-world scenarios.
* Using different JavaScript engines or implementations to compare their performance.
* Adding more test cases with varying complexity levels.

Overall, this benchmark provides a simple and focused test case that can help identify performance differences between evaluating `undefined` vs. `false` using dot notation.

Related benchmarks:

acasoveramente (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: undefined vs Boolean

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

undefined

Boolean

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):