Benchmark: isType bench - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var EDITABLE_STANDARD_TYPES = {
    __proto__: null,
    text: undefined,
    percent: undefined,
    phone: undefined,
    email: undefined,
    url: undefined,
    currency: undefined,
    number: undefined,
    boolean: undefined,
    'date-local': undefined,
    date: undefined,
};

var EDITABLE_STANDARD_TYPES_2 = {
    __proto__: null,
    text: true,
    percent: true,
    phone: true,
    email: true,
    url: true,
    currency: true,
    number: true,
    boolean: true,
    'date-local': true,
    date: true,
};

var EDITABLE_STANDARD_TYPES_3 = new Set(Object.keys(EDITABLE_STANDARD_TYPES_2));

Tests:

in-op
'text' in EDITABLE_STANDARD_TYPES; 'bar' in EDITABLE_STANDARD_TYPES;
bool
!!EDITABLE_STANDARD_TYPES_2['text'] !!EDITABLE_STANDARD_TYPES_2['bar']
set
EDITABLE_STANDARD_TYPES_3.has('text') EDITABLE_STANDARD_TYPES_3.has('bar')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
in-op
bool
set

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a test case that can be executed on the MeasureThat.net platform. It includes:

1. **Name**: A unique name for the benchmark, which is "isType bench" in this case.
2. **Description**: An optional description of the benchmark, which is empty in this example.
3. **Script Preparation Code**: A JavaScript code snippet that sets up variables and data structures used in the test cases. In this case, it defines three objects: `EDITABLE_STANDARD_TYPES`, `EDITABLE_STANDARD_TYPES_2`, and `EDITABLE_STANDARD_TYPES_3`. The first object has certain properties set to `undefined`, while the second object has all its properties set to `true`. The third object is a Set created from the keys of the second object.
4. **Html Preparation Code**: An optional code snippet that prepares the HTML environment for the benchmark, which is empty in this example.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark definition includes three individual test cases:

1. **"in-op"**: This test case uses the `in` operator to check if a property exists in an object. The script defines two variables: `text` and `bar`, both of which are strings.
2. **"bool"**: This test case uses the `!!` operator (also known as double negation) to convert a value to a boolean. It checks if the `text` property of `EDITABLE_STANDARD_TYPES_2` is truthy or not.
3. **"set"**: This test case uses the `has()` method of a Set object to check if an element exists in the set. The script defines two variables: `text` and `bar`, both of which are strings.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares three options:

1. **Using the `in` operator**: This approach checks if a property exists in an object using the `in` operator.
2. **Using double negation (`!!`)**: This approach converts a value to a boolean using double negation.
3. **Using the `has()` method of a Set**: This approach uses the `has()` method of a Set object to check if an element exists in the set.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **`in` operator**:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and efficient.
	* Cons: May not work correctly for certain types of objects or values (e.g., null, undefined).
2. **Double negation (`!!`)**:
	* Pros: Can be used to convert a value to a boolean, which can be useful in certain situations.
	* Cons: May cause confusion due to the double negation, and some browsers may optimize it away.
3. **`has()` method of a Set**:
	* Pros: Efficient and fast, as Sets use a hash table data structure.
	* Cons: Requires a Set object to be created, which may have performance overhead.

**Library Used**

There is no explicitly mentioned library in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, the `Set` object used in the "set" test case is a built-in JavaScript feature.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None of the test cases use special JavaScript features or syntax that are not widely supported.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to write similar tests, here are some alternative approaches:

1. **Using `hasOwnProperty()`**: Instead of using the `in` operator, you could use the `hasOwnProperty()` method to check if a property exists in an object.
2. **Using `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty()`**: As a fallback option, you could use the `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty()` method to check if a property exists in an object.
3. **Using a custom function**: You could create a custom function that takes an object and a property name as arguments and returns a boolean indicating whether the property exists.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics or behavior depending on the browser or environment being used.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/115.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 115 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
in-op	6739335.5 Ops/sec
bool	6668635.5 Ops/sec
set	7848012.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

isType bench (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: in-op vs bool vs set

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

in-op

bool

set

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):