Benchmark: if vs && * 10 (condition)

Script Preparation code:

function someFunction () { return; }

Tests:

condition via `if` statement
if (1) { if (1) { if (1) { if (1) { if (1) { if (1) { if (1) { if (1) { if (1) { if (1) { someFunction(); } } } } } } } } } }
condition via `&&` statement
1 && 1 && 1 && 1 && 1 && 1 && 1 && 1 && 1 && 1 && someFunction();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
condition via `if` statement
condition via `&&` statement

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which is a set of instructions that describe how to create and run a microbenchmark. In this case, there are two test cases:

1. "if vs && * 10  (condition)"
2. "condition via `if` statement"
3. "condition via `&&` statement"

The script preparation code is the same for both test cases: `function someFunction () { return; }`. This suggests that the focus of the benchmark is on comparing the performance of different conditional statements (`if` and `&&`) in a loop.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Conditional Statement**: The use of an `if` statement versus an `&&` statement.
2. **Loop Optimization**: The number of iterations (10) used in each test case.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1. **Using `if` statements:**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be easier to understand and debug for complex conditions.
		+ Might provide more accurate results due to the explicit control flow.
	* Cons:
		+ Can lead to slower performance due to the additional overhead of function calls and branch prediction errors.
2. **Using `&&` statements:**
	* Pros:
		+ Typically faster than `if` statements due to shorter execution paths and fewer branch predictions.
		+ Can take advantage of short-circuiting behavior, which can reduce the number of executions.
	* Cons:
		+ Might be less intuitive for developers unfamiliar with the syntax.
		+ Can lead to subtle bugs if not used carefully.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Loop Unrolling**: MeasureThat.net might be using loop unrolling techniques to optimize performance, but this is not explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition.
2. **Cache Effects**: The test cases are executed on a desktop environment, which may affect cache behavior. This could influence the results, especially if the browsers being tested have different caching policies.

**Libraries and Special JS Features**

None of the provided benchmark definitions mention any specific libraries or special JavaScript features that would impact the execution. However, MeasureThat.net might be using additional tools or techniques to optimize performance or ensure accurate results.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives for measuring conditional statement performance could include:

1. **Using `switch` statements**: This could provide a different perspective on the performance of each statement type.
2. **Comparing ternary operators (`?:`)**: Ternary operators are another common way to express simple conditions, and their performance might differ from the `if` and `&&` approaches.
3. **Measuring branch prediction accuracy**: MeasureThat.net could also focus on evaluating branch prediction algorithms used by modern browsers.

By understanding these considerations and alternatives, developers can better appreciate the challenges of measuring microbenchmark results and make informed decisions when optimizing code performance.

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/109.0.0.0 Iron Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 109 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
condition via `if` statement	8483226.0 Ops/sec
condition via `&&` statement	8667167.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

if vs && * 10 (condition) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: condition via `if` statement vs condition via `&&` statement

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

condition via `if` statement

condition via `&&` statement

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):