Benchmark: equals comparison

HTML Preparation code:

<!--your preparation HTML code goes here-->
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.21/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.foo = 'String 1 whatever';
window.bar = 'String 1 whatever';

Tests:

test 1
_.isEqual(window.foo, window.bar)
test 2
_.eq(window.foo, window.bar)
test 3
window.foo === window.bar
test 4
window.foo == window.foo

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test 1
test 2
test 3
test 4

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 20 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test 1	120122472.0 Ops/sec
test 2	114324216.0 Ops/sec
test 3	187176112.0 Ops/sec
test 4	206556736.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 20 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark defined in the provided JSON focuses on comparing different methods of performing equality checks in JavaScript. The tests involve comparing two string variables (`window.foo` and `window.bar`), both initialized to the same value ('String 1 whatever'). The benchmark specifically evaluates four approaches to equality checking, each with distinct characteristics:

### Individual Test Cases and Comparison

1. **Test 1: `_.isEqual(window.foo, window.bar)`**
   - **Library**: Lo-Dash (specifically the `isEqual` function).
   - **Purpose**: Lo-Dash is a modern JavaScript utility library that offers functions for common programming tasks, including deep comparisons between objects or values.
   - **Pros**: This approach is versatile and can handle deep comparisons (i.e., checking nested structures).
   - **Cons**: It introduces overhead due to function calls and additional logic for handling object structures, making it slower than pure JavaScript comparisons.

2. **Test 2: `_.eq(window.foo, window.bar)`**
   - **Library**: Also from Lo-Dash, the `eq` function performs a strict comparison between two values.
   - **Purpose**: It is intended to simplify and standardize equality checks, particularly useful in cases with more complex data types.
   - **Pros**: Less overhead compared to `isEqual`, as it primarily compares values.
   - **Cons**: Slightly slower than native comparisons due to function invocation and library overhead.

3. **Test 3: `window.foo === window.bar`**
   - **Pros**: This is a strict equality check using the built-in `===` operator, which compares both value and type. It is straightforward and generally faster than using a library.
   - **Cons**: It cannot handle deep equality checks, only checking if two values are identical in value and type.

4. **Test 4: `window.foo == window.foo`**
   - **Pros**: The loose equality check is not comparing two different variables; instead, it compares the same variable to itself. It effectively tests equality without additional complexity. Given the context, it demonstrates that the variable is equal to itself.
   - **Cons**: This test doesn’t provide a meaningful comparison between `foo` and `bar` since both references point to the same value.

### Benchmark Results

From the results:
- **Test 4** achieved the highest number of executions per second (206,556,736), indicating that checking equality of a variable against itself is highly efficient.
- **Test 3** follows closely (187,176,112), demonstrating that strict equality checks are also performant.
- **Test 1** and **Test 2** with Lo-Dash functions performed slower (120,122,472 and 114,324,216, respectively) due to the overhead of function calls and additional logic.

### Considerations and Alternatives

- **Performance**: If performance is critical, using native JavaScript operators (`===` and `==`) is generally preferred over utility libraries, especially in scenarios where deep comparison is not necessary.
- **Clarity and Maintainability**: While native checks are faster, using a utility library like Lo-Dash can improve code readability, particularly when dealing with complex objects or types where deep comparison is essential.
- **Other Alternatives**: 
   - **Deep Equality Libraries**: Other libraries like `lodash` or `underscore.js` might offer similar functionality. Use cases will define the right choice.
   - **Native Methods**: JavaScript features like `Object.is()` can also be utilized for equality checks, particularly for handling edge cases like `NaN` or distinguishing between `+0` and `-0`.

In conclusion, the benchmark effectively compares various equality checking approaches in JavaScript, highlighting performance trade-offs between native syntax and utility libraries. Understanding these nuances allows developers to make informed decisions based on the required functionality and performance characteristics in their applications.

Related benchmarks:

equals comparison (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: test 1 vs test 2 vs test 3 vs test 4

Created: 20 days ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test 1

test 2

test 3

test 4

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 20 days ago):