Benchmark: test if/else and if/else-if 2

Script Preparation code:

var testValue = "test string";

Tests:

if/else (true)
if (testValue === "test string") { } else { return false; }
if/else if (true)
if (testValue === "test string") { } else if (testValue !== "test string") { return false; }
if/else (false)
if (testValue === "test string 2") { } else { return false; }
if/else if (false)
if (testValue === "test string 2") { } else if (testValue !== "test string 2") { return false; }
ternary
return (testValue === "test string");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
if/else (true)
if/else if (true)
if/else (false)
if/else if (false)
ternary

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is crucial for optimizing code and ensuring it runs efficiently across various browsers and devices.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark tests the execution time of different control flow statements in JavaScript:

1. Simple `if` statement with a true condition
2. `if` statement with a false condition
3. `else if` statement with a true condition
4. `else if` statement with a false condition
5. Ternary operator (`return (condition)`)
6. Another `if` statement with a false condition

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the execution times of different approaches:

1. **Simple `if` statement**: The most basic form of conditional statements.
2. **Ternary operator**: A concise way to express simple conditions using a single expression.
3. **Nested `if` statements**: Using multiple conditions in a row, which can lead to slower performance due to the overhead of function calls and branching.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Simple `if` statement**:
	* Pros: Easy to understand and implement, minimal code overhead.
	* Cons: Can be slow if the condition is false, leading to unnecessary branch predictions.
2. **Ternary operator**:
	* Pros: Concise, efficient, and easy to read.
	* Cons: May not be as readable for complex conditions, and some browsers might not optimize it well.
3. **Nested `if` statements**:
	* Pros: Can be used when a simple condition is not sufficient, but this approach can lead to slower performance due to the overhead of function calls and branching.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Branch prediction**: Modern CPUs use branch predictors to guess the outcome of conditional branches. If the predictor is incorrect, it can lead to slower performance.
2. **Function call overhead**: In JavaScript, every function call incurs some overhead due to the need to create a new stack frame and perform parameter passing.

**Library Used**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, the use of `var` for declaring variables suggests that the code might be written in a style compatible with older browsers, where `let` and `const` are not widely supported yet.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None of the provided benchmarks explicitly uses any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, generators, or decorators. If it did, I would explain what those are and how they might affect performance in this specific benchmark.

**Alternatives**

If you need to measure control flow performance in JavaScript, you can use other benchmarking tools like:

1. **Benchmark.js**: A popular benchmarking library for Node.js.
2. **JSPerf**: A built-in benchmarking tool for JavaScript that comes with the browser.
3. **Benchpress**: A lightweight benchmarking library for Node.js.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives might have its own strengths and weaknesses, and it's essential to choose the one that best fits your specific use case and requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/94.0.4606.71 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 94 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
if/else (true)	14761482.0 Ops/sec
if/else if (true)	14385689.0 Ops/sec
if/else (false)	14850152.0 Ops/sec
if/else if (false)	7479238.0 Ops/sec
ternary	14828110.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test if/else and if/else-if 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: if/else (true) vs if/else if (true) vs if/else (false) vs if/else if (false) vs ternary

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

if/else (true)

if/else if (true)

if/else (false)

if/else if (false)

ternary

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):