Benchmark: dwqdwqdqwdqw - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var num = "12345";

Tests:

test1
if(+num > 10000){ console.log('hi'); }
test2
if(num > 10000){ console.log('hi'); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test1
test2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two benchmark definitions, each with its own script preparation code and HTML preparation code (which is null in both cases). The tests are designed to measure the performance of a JavaScript program by executing a simple if-statement.

The first benchmark definition uses an escaped newline character (`\r\n`) in the JavaScript code, while the second one does not. This suggests that the test is checking whether escaping newline characters affects the performance of the JavaScript interpreter.

**Options compared**

In this case, we have two options being compared:

1. **Escaping newline characters**: The first benchmark definition uses `\r\n` to create a newline character, while the second one uses `num > 10000`.
2. **No escaping**: The second benchmark definition does not escape the newline character.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

* **Escaping newline characters**:
	+ Pros: This might be necessary in certain situations where the JavaScript code needs to work with text data that contains newlines.
	+ Cons: Escaping newline characters can introduce extra overhead, potentially affecting performance. In this case, it's likely that the interpreter is able to optimize away the escaping overhead, but there's still a potential impact.
* **No escaping**:
	+ Pros: This approach avoids the potential overhead of escaping newline characters and might result in better performance.
	+ Cons: The test assumes that the JavaScript interpreter will be able to handle unescaped newlines correctly, which might not always be the case.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, none of the libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, it's likely that the benchmark is using a standard JavaScript environment (e.g., V8 in Chrome) and doesn't rely on any external libraries for its tests.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The test uses the `if` statement with a conditional expression (`+num > 10000`). This is a standard JavaScript syntax, but it's worth noting that the test assumes that the JavaScript interpreter will be able to optimize away the unnecessary casting of `num` to a number using the `+` operator.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to create your own benchmark for this scenario, you might consider using other approaches, such as:

* Using a more complex if-statement with multiple conditions
* Adding additional variables or data structures to the test
* Using different types of comparison operators (e.g., `===`, `!==`)
* Incorporating error handling or exceptions into the test

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require careful consideration of how they might impact the performance and accuracy of your benchmark.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The script preparation code for each benchmark is:

```javascript
var num = "12345";
```

This sets a variable `num` to the string value `"12345"`.

**Individual test cases**

Each test case has its own unique identifier (`TestName`) and benchmark definition. The first test case uses an escaped newline character in the JavaScript code, while the second one does not.

The benchmark preparation code for each test case is identical:

```javascript
if(+num > 10000){\r\n console.log('hi'); \r\n}
```

Or, without escaping newline characters:

```javascript
if(num > 10000){\r\n console.log('hi'); \r\n}
```

These scripts will evaluate the condition and print "hi" to the console if it's true.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test1	394645.8 Ops/sec
test2	391260.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

dwqdwqdqwdqw (version: 0)

dqwdwqdwq

Comparing performance of: test1 vs test2

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test1

test2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):