Benchmark: Boolean Operators

Tests:

&& Test
var truth = true; var falsy = false; truth && falsy
&& with > Test
var truth = true; var array = []; truth && array.length > 0

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
&& Test
&& with > Test

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to test the performance of JavaScript boolean operators, specifically the `&&` (logical AND) operator in various scenarios.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **"&& Test"`: This test case checks the performance of a simple `truth && falsy` expression, where `truth` is set to `true` and `falsy` is set to `false`.
2. **"&& with > Test"`: This test case modifies the previous test case by adding an additional check `array.length > 0`, where `array` is an empty array.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two different approaches are compared:

1. **Plain `&&` operator**: The plain `&&` operator is used in both test cases.
2. **Modified `&&` operator with additional checks**: In the second test case, an additional check `array.length > 0` is added to the original expression.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Plain `&&` operator**:
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward implementation, easy to understand.
	* Cons: May lead to false positives or incorrect results if the operands are not what they seem.
2. **Modified `&&` operator with additional checks**:
	* Pros: Reduces potential issues with operand type mismatches or unexpected behavior.
	* Cons: Adds complexity and may incur performance overhead due to the additional check.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the provided benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's likely that the browser being tested (Chrome 97) has its own JavaScript engine implementation with built-in optimizations for boolean operators.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark. The test cases use standard JavaScript syntax and semantics.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to create a similar benchmark, you might consider adding additional test cases that cover other scenarios, such as:

* Negated `&&` operator (`! &&`)
* Multiple `&&` operators with nested conditions
* Edge cases, like testing the behavior of `&&` with NaN (Not a Number) or Infinity values.

Keep in mind that the specific requirements and scope of your benchmark would dictate which test cases to include.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/97.0.4692.71 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 97 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
&& Test	986628480.0 Ops/sec
&& with > Test	981307712.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Boolean Operators (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: && Test vs && with > Test

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

&& Test

&& with > Test

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):