Benchmark: JS if/if vs if/or

Script Preparation code:

var test = 'test5'

Tests:

if/if
if (test === 'test1') { return true; } if (test === 'test2') { return true; } if (test === 'test3') { return true; } if (test === 'test4') { return true; } if (test === 'test5') { return true; }
if/or
if (test === 'test1' || test === 'test2' || test === 'test3' || test === 'test4'|| test === 'test5') return true;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
if/if
if/or

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/109.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 109 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
if/if	1641014.5 Ops/sec
if/or	1647797.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark test and its results.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the speed difference between using multiple `if` statements (`if/if`) versus an open-ended `if/else if` statement (`if/or`). The script preparation code is provided, which initializes a variable `test` with the value `'test5'`.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. Multiple `if` statements:
```javascript
if (test === 'test1') {
  return true;
}
if (test === 'test2') {
  return true;
}
if (test === 'test3') {
  return true;
}
if (test === 'test4') {
  return true;
}
if (test === 'test5') {
  return true;
}
```
This approach requires the browser to execute a separate conditional check for each possible value of `test`.

2. Open-ended `if/else if` statement:
```javascript
if (test === 'test1' || test === 'test2' || test === 'test3' || test === 'test4' || test === 'test5') {
  return true;
}
```
This approach uses a single conditional check that evaluates the `test` value against all possible values.

**Pros and Cons**

**Multiple `if` statements:**

Pros:

* More straightforward to read and understand
* Each condition is self-contained, making it easier to analyze and debug

Cons:

* Requires more code and iterations to execute, leading to slower performance

**Open-ended `if/else if` statement:**

Pros:

* Fewer lines of code, reducing execution overhead
* Can be faster because the browser only needs to perform a single conditional check

Cons:

* May be harder to read and understand due to its concise nature
* If not properly optimized, it can lead to slower performance if the condition is not met quickly enough

**Library/Function Usage**

There is no library or function explicitly mentioned in the benchmark. However, some JavaScript engines, such as V8 (used by Chrome), have internal optimizations that might affect the results.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard `if` and `else if` statements.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives to compare in this benchmark could include:

1. Using a switch statement instead of multiple `if` statements.
2. Employing early returns instead of using separate `return true` statements for each condition.
3. Utilizing compiler optimizations like inlining or dead code elimination.
4. Comparing the performance of different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey) with their respective settings.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be directly related to the specific question being asked and could introduce additional variables to consider when evaluating the results.

Related benchmarks:

JS if/if vs if/or (version: 0)

Benchmark of the speed difference between using multiple IF statements and an open-ended IF/ELSE IF.

Comparing performance of: if/if vs if/or

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

if/if

if/or

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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