Benchmark: somethin - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

equals empty
var a = ""; if(a == "") { return };
length
var a = ""; if(a.length == 0) { return };
emptyequals
var a = "asfljjhlasfdhjasdffadljkjfhldsalhjkadfsljkafdsklfadslklkfajds"; if(a == "") { return };
emtptylength
var a = "asfljjhlasfdhjasdffadljkjfhldsalhjkadfsljkafdsklfadslklkfajds"; if(a.length == 0) { return };

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
equals empty
length
emptyequals
emtptylength

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided `Benchmark Definition` is a simple JavaScript code snippet:
```javascript
var a = "";

if(a == "") { return; }
```
This code checks if the string variable `a` is empty by using the `==` operator for equality. If `a` is empty, the function returns immediately.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are four test cases:

1. **equals empty**: This test case checks if the condition `if(a == "") { return; }` is executed.
2. **length**: This test case checks if the condition `if(a.length == 0) { return; }` is executed.
3. **emptyequals**: This test case uses a longer string and checks if the condition `if(a == "") { return; }` is executed.
4. **emtptylength**: This test case uses a longer string and checks if the condition `if(a.length == 0) { return; }` is executed.

**Comparison of Approaches**

The main difference between these approaches is the way they check for an empty string:

* `== ""`: This approach uses the `==` operator, which compares the value of `a` with an empty string using the value comparison method. This can be slow and may lead to unexpected results due to type coercion (e.g., null or NaN being considered as strings).
* `length == 0`: This approach checks the length of the string directly. This is generally faster and more accurate, as it avoids type coercion.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`== ""` approach**:
	+ Pros: Simple to implement.
	+ Cons: May be slow due to value comparison, prone to unexpected results.
* **`length == 0` approach**:
	+ Pros: Generally faster and more accurate.
	+ Cons: Requires checking the length of the string.

**Library Usage**

There is no library usage in these benchmark definitions. However, some JavaScript engines (e.g., V8) may use internal optimizations or features that affect the execution time of this code.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the provided benchmark definitions use any special JavaScript features or syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to test different approaches or variations on these tests, here are some alternative benchmark cases:

* Test cases with `null` instead of an empty string:
```javascript
if(a == null) { return; }
```
or

```javascript
if(a === null) { return; }
```
* Test cases with a longer string:
```javascript
var a = "a".repeat(1000);
if(a == "") { return; }
```

Keep in mind that these alternative tests may not be representative of real-world use cases, but they can help you understand the performance characteristics of different approaches.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_2) AppleWebKit/601.3.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/9.0.2 Safari/601.3.9

Browser/OS: Safari 9 on Mac OS X 10.11.2

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
equals empty	168322624.0 Ops/sec
length	165714752.0 Ops/sec
emptyequals	169737248.0 Ops/sec
emtptylength	170271472.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

somethin (version: 0)

some test

Comparing performance of: equals empty vs length vs emptyequals vs emtptylength

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

equals empty

length

emptyequals

emtptylength

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):