Benchmark: test reur - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/angular.js/1.6.5/angular.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

function getItemSize(local) { return local ? 72 : 56; }
function getItemSize2(local) { return local && 72 || 56; }
function getItemSize3(local) { if (local) return 72; return 56; }

Tests:

1_t
getItemSize(true)
1_f
getItemSize(false)
2_t
getItemSize2(true)
2_f
getItemSize(false)
3_t
getItemSize3(true)
3_f
getItemSize3(false)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1_t
1_f
2_t
2_f
3_t
3_f

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 break down the provided benchmark JSON and explain what is being tested, the options being compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The `Script Preparation Code` section defines three functions: `getItemSize`, `getItemSize2`, and `getItemSize3`. These functions seem to be testing different ways of handling null or undefined values in JavaScript. The purpose is unclear without more context, but it appears to be related to measuring the performance difference between using a strict equality operator (`===`) versus a loose equality operator (`==`).

**Options being compared**

The three options being compared are:

1. **Strict Equality Operator (`getItemSize(true)` and `getItemSize2(true)`)**: This approach uses the `===` operator, which checks for both value and type equality. In this case, it will return 72 because `true` is a truthy value.
2. **Loose Equality Operator (`getItemSize(false)` and `getItemSize3(false)`)**: This approach uses the `==` operator, which only checks for value equality. In this case, it will return 56 because `false` is a falsy value.
3. **Ternary Expression with Null Coalescing (`getItemSize3(true)`)**: This approach uses a ternary expression with a null coalescing operator (`??`) to check if the input is truthy. If it is, it returns 72; otherwise, it returns 56.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Strict Equality Operator (`getItemSize` and `getItemSize2`)**:
	+ Pros: More accurate results when dealing with value equality.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the type checking.
* **Loose Equality Operator (`getItemSize` and `getItemSize3`)**:
	+ Pros: Faster execution speed, as it only checks for value equality.
	+ Cons: May produce incorrect results if not careful, especially when dealing with NaN (Not a Number) or undefined values.
* **Ternary Expression with Null Coalescing (`getItemSize3`)**:
	+ Pros: More concise and readable code, as well as better performance due to the null coalescing operator.
	+ Cons: May be less intuitive for developers who are not familiar with this syntax.

**Library usage**

The `angular.js` library is included in the `Html Preparation Code`. AngularJS is a JavaScript framework that helps build complex web applications. In this context, it's likely being used as a dependency to load other libraries or scripts.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

None of the provided code uses any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's described above.

**Other considerations**

The benchmark seems to focus on measuring performance differences between various approaches to handling null or undefined values. However, it would be helpful to include more context about why these specific functions are being tested and how they relate to real-world use cases.

As for alternatives, there are many other ways to test JavaScript performance and compare different approaches. Some popular options include:

* `Benchmark.js`: A lightweight, modular benchmarking library for Node.js.
* `jsperf.com`: A popular online platform for running JavaScript benchmarks.
* `Chrome DevTools`: The Chrome browser's developer tools can be used to run custom benchmarks and measure performance.

Keep in mind that the choice of benchmarking tool or library often depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and desired level of complexity.

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/117.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/103.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Opera 103 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1_t	27216590.0 Ops/sec
1_f	27180674.0 Ops/sec
2_t	27177116.0 Ops/sec
2_f	27218684.0 Ops/sec
3_t	26657640.0 Ops/sec
3_f	26699332.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test reur (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1_t vs 1_f vs 2_t vs 2_f vs 3_t vs 3_f

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1_t

1_f

2_t

2_f

3_t

3_f

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):