Benchmark: JS if/else vs if/else if

Script Preparation code:

var test = 'test'

Tests:

if/if
if (test === 'test1') { return true; } else { return false; }
if/else if
if (!test) { return false; } else if (test === 'test1') { return true; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
if/if
if/else if

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/94.0.4606.71 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 94 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
if/if	15847629.0 Ops/sec
if/else if	7988632.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**What is being tested?**

The test measures the speed difference between two approaches to handle conditional statements:

1. **Multiple `if` statements**: The first test case checks if the variable `test` is equal to `'test1'`. If true, it returns `true`, otherwise, it returns `false`.
2. **Single `if/else if` statement**: The second test case checks two conditions:
	* If `test` is falsy (i.e., not defined or zero), it returns `false`.
	* If `test` is equal to `'test1'`, it returns `true`.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the execution speed of these two approaches.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Multiple `if` statements**:
	* Pros:
		+ Easy to read and understand.
		+ Each condition can be handled separately, making debugging easier.
	* Cons:
		+ More code is required, which can increase overhead due to function call and lookup times.
2. **Single `if/else if` statement**:
	* Pros:
		+ Less code is required, reducing overhead.
		+ Can be more efficient in terms of branch prediction and cache hits.
	* Cons:
		+ May be less readable for developers who are not familiar with this construct.

**Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following factors:

1. **Readability**: If code readability is more important than performance, use multiple `if` statements.
2. **Performance-critical code**: If the code needs to execute frequently and performance is critical, use a single `if/else if` statement.
3. **Complexity**: If the conditionals become complex with many branches or variables, consider using a different approach, such as a lookup table or a switch statement.

**Library usage**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, some JavaScript engines may optimize certain constructs, such as `if` statements or `else if` chains, for specific libraries or frameworks.

**Special JS features/syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require explanation. It only uses standard JavaScript syntax and semantics.

**Alternatives**

If you need to perform similar comparisons or optimizations in your own code, consider the following alternatives:

1. **Switch statements**: If the conditions are based on enumerations or strings, a switch statement might be more efficient.
2. **Lookup tables**: If the conditions are based on constants or precomputed values, a lookup table can reduce overhead and improve performance.
3. **Memoization**: If the conditions involve complex computations or recursive calls, memoization can cache results to avoid redundant calculations.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require additional consideration for code readability, maintainability, and scalability.

Related benchmarks:

JS if/else vs if/else if (version: 0)

Benchmark of the speed difference between using multiple IF statements and an open-ended IF/ELSE IF.

Comparing performance of: if/if vs if/else if

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

if/if

if/else if

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):