Benchmark: Bool vs String comp

Script Preparation code:

b = true
s = "true"

Tests:

Bool comp
if(b) { r = true }
Bool comp 2
if(b == true) { r = true }
String comp
if(s == "true" ) { r = true }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Bool comp
Bool comp 2
String comp

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 JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and analyzed in the benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**
The `Name` field indicates that this is a microbenchmark comparing different string comparison methods for booleans (true/false values) versus strings. The `Script Preparation Code` initializes two variables: `b` set to `true` and `s` set to the string `"true"`. This code prepares the environment for the individual test cases.

**Individual Test Cases**
There are three test cases:

1. **Bool comp**: Compares a boolean value (`b`) with another value (expected to be equal). The `if(b)` condition is evaluated, and if true, a variable `r` is set to `true`.
2. **Bool comp 2**: Similar to the previous one, but uses an explicit comparison operator (`==`) between the boolean value and a hardcoded `true` value.
3. **String comp**: Compares a string (`s`) with another string (`"true"`). The `if(s == "true")` condition is evaluated, and if true, a variable `r` is set to `true`.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares three different comparison methods:

1. **Bool value directly (if(b))**: Evaluates the boolean value directly in the `if` statement.
2. **Explicit comparison operator (==)**: Uses an explicit comparison operator (`==`) between the boolean value and a hardcoded `true` value.
3. **String comparison (s == "true")**: Compares the string with another string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Bool value directly (if(b))**:
	* Pros: Simple, direct evaluation of the boolean value.
	* Cons: Can lead to unnecessary comparisons if the value is already known to be true or false.
2. **Explicit comparison operator (==)**:
	* Pros: Allows for explicit control over comparisons and can prevent potential issues with type coercion.
	* Cons: May add overhead due to the extra operation.
3. **String comparison (s == "true")**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient if the string is already known to match or not match the target value.
	* Cons: Requires careful handling of Unicode and character encoding issues.

**Libraries and Special JS Features**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided code snippets. However, it's worth noting that JavaScript engines often have built-in optimizations for specific types of comparisons, such as boolean or string comparisons.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches to compare strings or booleans could include:

* Using `===` (identity comparison) instead of `==`
* Implementing custom comparison functions using regular expressions
* Comparing values using a numerical representation (e.g., converting booleans to numbers)
* Utilizing specialized libraries or extensions for more efficient comparisons

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case and performance requirements. Microbenchmarks like this one help identify optimal strategies for common scenarios.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:130.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/130.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Bool comp	166338752.0 Ops/sec
Bool comp 2	189638112.0 Ops/sec
String comp	159318224.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Bool vs String comp (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Bool comp vs Bool comp 2 vs String comp

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Bool comp

Bool comp 2

String comp

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):