Benchmark: test array check

Script Preparation code:

var array = ["one","two"];

Tests:

exists
function test(tmp){ if(tmp) { return 1; } } console.log(test(array));
length
function test(tmp){ if(tmp.length) { return 1; } } console.log(test(array));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
exists
length

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark defined on the MeasureThat.net website. The benchmark checks two different aspects of an array:

1. "exists": This test case checks if the array is truthy (i.e., not empty or null).
2. "length": This test case checks if the array has a valid length.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is:
```javascript
var array = ["one", "two"];
```
This creates an array with two elements, `"one"` and `"two"`, which will be used as input for both test cases.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, so we'll assume that the benchmark only runs in a JavaScript environment (e.g., Node.js or web browser).

**Test Cases**

The individual test cases are defined as follows:

1. "exists":
```javascript
function test(tmp) {
  if (tmp) {
    return 1;
  }
}
```
This test case simply checks if the input array `tmp` is truthy, and returns `1` if it is.

2. "length":
```javascript
function test(tmp) {
  if (tmp.length) {
    return 1;
  }
}
```
This test case checks if the input array `tmp` has a valid length (i.e., at least one element), and returns `1` if it does.

**Comparison**

The two test cases are compared to determine which approach is faster. The benchmark results show that:

* "exists" is executed approximately 52,626 times per second on the specified hardware.
* "length" is executed approximately 50,226 times per second on the same hardware.

This suggests that the "exists" test case is slightly faster than the "length" test case.

**Pros and Cons**

**"exists":**

Pros:

* Simple and concise implementation
* Quickly evaluates if an array is truthy

Cons:

* May not be as informative for users who want to know the exact length of the array

**"length":**

Pros:

* Provides more useful information for users (i.e., the actual length of the array)

Cons:

* May require additional computation or checks to ensure a valid length

**Other Considerations**

Some other considerations when writing microbenchmarks like this one include:

* Using meaningful and descriptive names for test cases
* Providing clear documentation for each test case (e.g., descriptions, inputs, outputs)
* Considering the specific hardware and software environment in which the benchmark will run
* Ensuring that the benchmark is representative of real-world use cases

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternative approaches to writing microbenchmarks include:

* Using built-in array methods (e.g., `Array.prototype.every()`, `Array.prototype.some()`) instead of simple if- statements.
* Using more advanced data structures or algorithms (e.g., sets, maps) that may offer improved performance for specific use cases.
* Incorporating additional features like error handling or input validation to make the benchmark more robust.

I hope this explanation helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2025 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/59.0.3071.86 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 59 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
exists	50226.9 Ops/sec
length	53739.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test array check (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: exists vs length

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

exists

length

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):