Benchmark: noop vs conditional execution

Script Preparation code:

var no_Op = function() {};
var checkMe = [
  void 0,
  function(x, y) {
    x.n += y;
  },
  function(x, y) {
    x.n += y;
  },
  void 0,
  function(x,y) {
    x.n += y;
  },
  void 0,
  function(x, y) {
  	x.n += y;
  },
  void 0
];
var runMe = checkMe.map(fn => fn || no_Op);

Tests:

conditional
const accumulator = {n: 0}; for (let i = 0, fn; i < checkMe.lenght; i++) { fn = checkMe[i]; if (fn) { fn(accumulator, i); } }
no_Op
const accumulator = {n: 0}; for (let i = 0; i < runMe.length; i++) { runMe[i](accumulator, i); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
conditional
no_Op

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark test case and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons of those approaches, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The test case is designed to compare the performance of two approaches:

1. **Conditional Execution**: In this approach, a function (`fn`) is only executed if it exists in the `checkMe` array.
2. **No-Op (No Operation) Function**: In this approach, a no-op function (`no_Op`) is used as a fallback when `fn` does not exist in the `checkMe` array.

**Options Compared:**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Conditional Execution**: This approach uses an if statement to check if `fn` exists before executing it.
2. **No-Op Function**: This approach uses a no-op function (`no_Op`) as a fallback when `fn` does not exist.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Conditional Execution**:
	+ Pros: More accurate results, as the actual execution time of the non-existent functions is measured.
	+ Cons: May have slower performance due to the additional check.
* **No-Op Function**:
	+ Pros: Faster performance, as the no-op function does not require any execution time.
	+ Cons: May skew results if the no-op function is significantly faster or slower than the actual functions being executed.

**Library and Purpose:**

The `checkMe` array contains a mix of functions with different numbers of arguments (`x` and `y`). The `runMe` variable is created by mapping over `checkMe` and replacing non-existent functions with `no_Op`.

The purpose of this library is to provide a set of test cases that can be used to compare the performance of conditional execution versus no-op function usage.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**

This benchmark does not rely on any special JavaScript features or syntax, making it accessible to a wide range of developers.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to this test case, consider the following:

1. **Early Returns**: Instead of using an if statement, consider using early returns to skip over non-existent functions.
2. **Switch Statements**: If the number of possible functions is limited, consider using a switch statement instead of an array-based approach.
3. **Caching**: Consider caching the results of function lookups to avoid repeated checks.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may affect the accuracy or performance of your benchmark test case.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
conditional	18266676.0 Ops/sec
no_Op	1084312.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

noop vs conditional execution (version: 0)

Is it faster to run a noop (no-op, no op) function in javascript or is it faster to check if a function exist before calling it? let's find out!

Comparing performance of: conditional vs no_Op

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

conditional

no_Op

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):