Benchmark: Logic test - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

less than
var virtualScroll = 4; var test; var arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; if (virtualScroll !== false && (arr.length > virtualScroll || virtualScroll === true)) { test = 'run'; }
greater than
var virtualScroll = 7; var test; var arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; if (virtualScroll !== false && (arr.length > virtualScroll || virtualScroll === true)) { test = 'run'; }
true
var virtualScroll = true; var test; var arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; if (virtualScroll !== false && (arr.length > virtualScroll || virtualScroll === true)) { test = 'run'; }
false
var virtualScroll = false; var test; var arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; if (virtualScroll !== false && (arr.length > virtualScroll || virtualScroll === true)) { test = 'run'; }
less than (without false check)
var virtualScroll = 4; var test; var arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; if (arr.length > virtualScroll || virtualScroll === true) { test = 'run'; }
greater than (without false check)
var virtualScroll = 7; var test; var arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; if (arr.length > virtualScroll || virtualScroll === true) { test = 'run'; }
true (without false check)
var virtualScroll = true; var test; var arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; if (arr.length > virtualScroll || virtualScroll === true) { test = 'run'; }
false (without false check)
var virtualScroll = false; var test; var arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; if (arr.length > virtualScroll || virtualScroll === true) { test = 'run'; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
less than
greater than
true
false
less than (without false check)
greater than (without false check)
true (without false check)
false (without false check)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is a complex task, as it involves many factors such as the browser, device platform, operating system, and even JavaScript engine optimizations.

The provided benchmark definition json specifies that users can create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks to compare different approaches for testing conditions. In this case, the tests are designed to compare the performance of different conditions in a conditional statement.

**Options being compared:**

1. `if (virtualScroll !== false && (arr.length > virtualScroll || virtualScroll === true))`
2. `if (arr.length > virtualScroll || virtualScroll === true)`

The main difference between these two options is the presence of the `!== false` check in the first condition. This check ensures that the condition only evaluates to `true` if `virtualScroll` is not equal to `false`, even if `arr.length` is greater than `virtualScroll`.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **With `!== false` check:**
	* Pros:
		+ Prevents unnecessary checks for invalid values.
	* Cons:
		+ May introduce additional overhead due to the extra comparison.
2. **Without `!== false` check:**
	* Pros:
		+ Reduces overhead by removing the extra comparison.
	* Cons:
		+ Allows for potential false positives, where an empty array or a small array length is considered greater than a non-zero value.

**Other considerations:**

* The use of `||` instead of `&&` may also affect performance, as it can lead to short-circuit evaluation (i.e., the expression only evaluates up to the first true value).
* The choice of comparison operator (`>` or `===`) can impact performance, as some browsers may optimize for exact equality checks.
* The use of a non-strict inequality check (`>=` instead of `>`) may also affect performance.

**Browser and device platform variations:**

The benchmark results show significant variations in performance across different browsers, devices, and operating systems. This is due to differences in JavaScript engine optimizations, memory management, and other factors that can impact performance.

To make the benchmarks more representative, it's essential to consider these variations when interpreting the results. For example:

* The use of `===` instead of `>` may lead to better performance for some browsers.
* The presence of a `!== false` check may have a significant impact on performance in some cases.

**Best practices:**

To optimize JavaScript performance, it's essential to follow best practices such as:

* Minimizing unnecessary checks and comparisons
* Using strict equality checks (`===`) instead of loose equality checks (`==`)
* Avoiding short-circuit evaluation when possible
* Optimizing for common use cases and edge cases

By understanding the trade-offs between different approaches, you can make informed decisions about how to optimize your JavaScript code for better performance.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/62.0.3202.94 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 62 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
less than	613191872.0 Ops/sec
greater than	611786432.0 Ops/sec
true	609676224.0 Ops/sec
false	608556160.0 Ops/sec
less than (without false check)	612236352.0 Ops/sec
greater than (without false check)	609603264.0 Ops/sec
true (without false check)	604996864.0 Ops/sec
false (without false check)	611567616.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Logic test (version: 3)

Comparing performance of: less than vs greater than vs true vs false vs less than (without false check) vs greater than (without false check) vs true (without false check) vs false (without false check)

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

less than

greater than

true

false

less than (without false check)

greater than (without false check)

true (without false check)

false (without false check)

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):