Benchmark: Which equals operator (== vs === vs != vs !== ) is faster?

Tests:

test equality
var n = 0; while(true) { n++; if(n==100000) break; }
test strict equality
var n = 0; while(true) { n++; if(n===100000) break; }
test inequality
var n = 0; while(true) { n++; if(n!=100000) break; }
test strict inequality
var n = 0; while(true) { n++; if(n!==100000) break; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test equality
test strict equality
test inequality
test strict inequality

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a script that is executed to test the performance of different equality operators in JavaScript. The script uses an infinite while loop to iterate from 0 to 100,000, and checks if the current value `n` matches one of four conditions: equal (`==`), strict equal (`===`), not equal (`!=`), or strict not equal (`!==`). The benchmark is designed to measure which operator is faster.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of four different equality operators:

1. **Strict Equality (`===`)**: Checks if two values are both equal and of the same data type.
2. **Non-strict Equality (`==`)**: Checks if two values are equal, but does not enforce data type consistency.
3. **Not Equal (`!=`)**: Checks if two values are not equal.
4. **Strict Not Equal (`!==`)**: Checks if two values are neither equal nor of the same data type.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each operator:

* **Strict Equality (`===`)**:
	+ Pros: Ensures strict equality, which is important for avoiding potential type coercion issues.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to the additional checks required.
* **Non-strict Equality (`==`)**:
	+ Pros: Faster than `===`, but may introduce type coercion issues if not handled carefully.
	+ Cons: Less reliable and more prone to errors, especially when dealing with incompatible data types.
* **Not Equal (`!=`)**:
	+ Pros: Simple and fast, but may not be sufficient for all use cases (e.g., comparing floating-point numbers).
	+ Cons: Does not provide any useful information about the equality of two values; it only indicates whether they are different.
* **Strict Not Equal (`!==`)**:
	+ Pros: Combines the benefits of `===` and `!=`, providing strict inequality while avoiding potential type coercion issues.
	+ Cons: Similar to `===`, may be slower due to additional checks.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition, but it's likely that MeasureThat.net uses a built-in JavaScript engine or a wrapper around popular engines like V8 (used by Chrome) or SpiderMonkey (used by Firefox).

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes explicitly used in this benchmark. The script is straightforward and focuses on demonstrating the performance differences between four basic equality operators.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options:

* **TypeScript**: While not specifically designed for benchmarks, TypeScript's type system can provide additional insights into equality operator performance by enforcing strict type checking.
* **ES6+ features**: Newer JavaScript features like `Math.abs()` or `Number.isInteger()` might be more efficient for specific use cases. However, their inclusion would require modifications to the benchmark definition.
* **Alternative engines or compilers**: Measuring the performance of different JavaScript engines or compilers (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey, or even Node.js's built-in engine) could provide interesting results, especially if you're interested in optimizing for specific platforms or use cases.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant modifications to the benchmark definition and script preparation code.

I hope this explanation helps! If you have any further questions or need clarification on specific aspects of the benchmark, feel free to ask.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 14 hours ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test equality	21759.4 Ops/sec
test strict equality	21388.9 Ops/sec
test inequality	85421672.0 Ops/sec
test strict inequality	59896452.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Which equals operator (== vs === vs != vs !== ) is faster? (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: test equality vs test strict equality vs test inequality vs test strict inequality

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test equality

test strict equality

test inequality

test strict inequality

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):