Benchmark: compare null - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

({}) !== null;
({}) !== null;
({}) != null;
({}) !== null;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
({}) !== null;
({}) != null;

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/111.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 111 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
({}) !== null;	1493388800.0 Ops/sec
({}) != null;	1493383296.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help explain the benchmark and its results.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests whether JavaScript expressions of the form `({}) !== null` or `({}) != null` evaluate to true (i.e., are not equal to `null`). The focus is on how different browsers compare these values.

**Options compared:**

There are two variations:

1. **`!==`**: Uses the non-equal comparison operator, which checks if the value on the left is not equal to the value on the right.
2. **`!=`**: Uses the strict inequality operator, which also checks for non-equality but can be less efficient than `!==` in some cases.

**Pros and Cons:**

*   **`!==`**: The most common way to compare values in JavaScript. It has better browser support and is generally faster.
    *   Pros: Wide support across browsers, fast execution
    *   Cons: None notable
*   **`!=`**: An older way of comparing values. Although still supported by modern browsers, it may be slower than `!==`.
    *   Pros: Familiar syntax for developers familiar with older versions of JavaScript
    *   Cons: Less efficient and less supported in new browsers

**Library and Purpose (None)**

There are no libraries involved in this benchmark.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax (None)**

There is no special feature or syntax used in these test cases. They use standard JavaScript syntax for comparison operators.

**Alternatives**

If you want to compare values in a different way, you might consider using:

*   `===` for equality checks
*   `!==` as the most efficient non-equality check
*   Regular expressions (`RegExp.test`) if you need more complex pattern matching

Related benchmarks:

compare null (version: 0)

test

Comparing performance of: ({}) !== null; vs ({}) != null;

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

({}) !== null;

({}) != null;

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):