Benchmark: null check or falsy

Script Preparation code:

const data = {};

Tests:

check null
if(typeof data !== 'object' || data === null) { return false; }
check falsy
if(typeof data !== 'object' || !data) { return false; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
check null
check falsy

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 benchmark and explain what is tested, compared options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**What is tested:**

The benchmark tests two different approaches to check if a variable `data` is either null or falsy (i.e., an empty string, 0, etc.). The test cases are:

1. `check null`: Tests if the variable is null.
2. `check falsy`: Tests if the variable is falsy.

**Options compared:**

The benchmark compares two approaches to check for null and falsy values:

A) `typeof data !== 'object' || data === null`
B) `typeof data !== 'object' || !data`

Let's analyze each option:

**Option A (`typeof data !== 'object' || data === null`)**

* This approach checks if the variable is not an object (using `typeof`) and then checks if it's equal to null.
* Pros:
	+ Fast, as it only requires a single comparison.
	+ Easy to read and understand.
* Cons:
	+ May return incorrect results for non-integer falsy values (e.g., 0, "", etc.).
	+ May not work correctly with some custom objects that don't implement the `toString()` method.

**Option B (`typeof data !== 'object' || !data`)**

* This approach checks if the variable is not an object (using `typeof`) and then uses the logical NOT operator (!) to check if it's falsy.
* Pros:
	+ Works correctly for non-integer falsy values (e.g., 0, "", etc.).
	+ Handles custom objects that don't implement the `toString()` method.
* Cons:
	+ Requires a second comparison, which might be slower than Option A.

**Other considerations:**

Both options are generally acceptable, but depending on the specific use case and requirements, one may be preferred over the other. For example:

* If you need to support older browsers that don't understand `typeof` as a boolean expression, Option B might be a better choice.
* If you want to optimize for performance, Option A might be a better choice.

**Library usage:**

None of the test cases use any external libraries.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
check null	3547303.0 Ops/sec
check falsy	3571329.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

null check or falsy (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: check null vs check falsy

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

check null

check falsy

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):