Benchmark: array.length vs array.length > 0 without console.log

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
var y = 0

Tests:

array length
if (arr.length) { y = 1 } else { y = 2 }
array length > 0
if (arr.length > 0) { y = 1 } else { y = 2 }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array length
array length > 0

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated yesterday):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition JSON contains two key pieces of information:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This is a snippet of JavaScript code that is executed before running the actual benchmark. In this case, it initializes an empty array `arr` and sets a variable `y` to 0.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means there are no additional setup or initialization steps for the browser.

**Individual Test Cases**

The test cases are two separate benchmarks that compare different approaches:

1. **Test Case 1: array.length**
This benchmark checks the performance of using `arr.length` in a conditional statement.
2. **Test Case 2: array.length > 0**
This benchmark compares the performance of using `arr.length > 0` in a conditional statement.

**Comparison**

The two test cases are comparing different approaches to check if an array is empty or not:

* In Test Case 1, `arr.length` is used, which returns 0 for an empty array and a non-zero value for a non-empty array.
* In Test Case 2, `arr.length > 0` is used, which will return true for an empty array (because 0 is considered falsey in JavaScript) and false for a non-empty array.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Using `arr.length`:**
	+ Pros: Simple and straightforward.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the need to check if the length is 0, even when it's not empty. This can lead to unnecessary computations.
* **Using `arr.length > 0`:**
	+ Pros: More efficient for non-empty arrays, since the comparison only checks if the array is non-empty.
	+ Cons: May be slower for empty arrays, since JavaScript needs to check if a falsy value (in this case, 0) is greater than another value. This can lead to unnecessary computations.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

There are no libraries or special JavaScript features being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

In general, when comparing the performance of different approaches, it's essential to consider factors like:

* **Nullability**: How do different approaches handle null values?
* **Zero-optimization**: Are there any optimizations that can be applied to reduce unnecessary computations or memory allocations?

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to add more test cases or variations, here are some ideas:

* Compare the performance of using `arr.length` vs `arr.includes(false)` (which returns false for an empty array) and `arr.includes(true)` (which returns true for a non-empty array).
* Test different approaches to check if an array is not empty, such as using `arr.some()` or `arr.every()`.
* Compare the performance of using `arr.length` vs using a custom implementation that checks the length of the array.

Keep in mind that adding more test cases can increase the complexity and variability of the benchmark, which may affect its accuracy.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array length	8080100.0 Ops/sec
array length > 0	8385852.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

array.length vs array.length > 0 without console.log (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: array length vs array length > 0

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array length

array length > 0

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated yesterday):