Benchmark: Which operator is faster for indexOf ( '>' vs '!==' ) is faster?

Tests:

test greater than
var word = 'ajgnaerijgnaijerg ijaerg ijaer ijgaeognioesfio awrgoinaergoinaeoinrgoinaergoniaeofn aosf '; var i = 0; while(i < 1000) { i++; if (word.indexOf(' awrg') > -1) { console.log('there') } }
test strict equality
var word = 'ajgnaerijgnaijerg ijaerg ijaer ijgaeognioesfio awrgoinaergoinaeoinrgoinaergoniaeofn aosf '; var i = 0; while(i < 1000) { i++; if (word.indexOf(' awrg') !== -1) { console.log('there') } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test greater than
test strict equality

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and what pros and cons are associated with each approach.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares the performance of two JavaScript operators: `>` (greater than) and `!=='` (strict inequality). The test case uses a while loop to iterate 1000 times, and within each iteration, it checks if a certain substring (`"awrg"`) exists in a given string (`"word"`).

**Comparison options**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches:

1. Using `> >` (greater than operator) for the substring check.
2. Using `!== -1` (strict inequality and negation) for the substring check.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Using `> >`:**
	* Pros:
		+ More readable and easier to understand, especially for developers familiar with C-style programming languages.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the extra operation ( negation) and potential branch prediction issues.
2. **Using `!== -1`:**
	* Pros:
		+ Optimized by most JavaScript engines for substring checks, as it's equivalent to a binary search.
		+ Can take advantage of branch prediction, potentially leading to better performance.
	* Cons:
		+ Less readable and may require more expertise in JavaScript-specific optimizations.

**Library and syntax**

None mentioned. The test case only uses built-in JavaScript operators and no external libraries.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There is no explicit mention of any special JavaScript features or syntax. However, the use of `===` (strict equality) is a common practice in JavaScript for comparing values.

**Other alternatives**

In theory, other approaches could be used:

1. Using a regular expression to search for the substring (`/awrg/g`).
2. Using a library like jQuery's `indexOf()` method.
3. Using a different algorithm, such as Boyer-Moore string searching.

However, these alternatives are likely to introduce additional complexity and might not provide a significant performance benefit compared to the optimized JavaScript engine implementation used by Chrome 61.

**Benchmark preparation code**

There is no provided preparation code in the JSON data. The test case expects the input string (`word`) and the number of iterations (1000) to be defined elsewhere, likely in the benchmark setup or configuration files.

The benchmark results show that `test strict equality` performed slightly better than `test greater than`.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/61.0.3163.100 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 61 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test greater than	114.4 Ops/sec
test strict equality	116.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Which operator is faster for indexOf ( '>' vs '!==' ) is faster? (version: 0)

Is there a performance benefit to replacing > with !== for indexOf calculations?

Comparing performance of: test greater than vs test strict equality

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test greater than

test strict equality

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):