Benchmark: true vs false vs false vs true

Script Preparation code:

var test = 'test'
var test1 = 'test1'

Tests:

test true without neg
if (test === 'test') return true; return false
test true with neg
if (!(test === 'test')) return false; return true
test false without neg
if (test1 === 'test') return true; return false
test false with neg
if (!(test1 === 'test')) return false; return true

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test true without neg
test true with neg
test false without neg
test false with neg

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/106.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 106 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test true without neg	29193014.0 Ops/sec
test true with neg	29354532.0 Ops/sec
test false without neg	29353002.0 Ops/sec
test false with neg	29225278.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between two JavaScript expressions: `if (test === 'test')` and `if (!(test === 'test'))`. The test cases are:

1. `test true without neg`: Compare `if (test === 'test')`
2. `test true with neg`: Compare `if (!(test === 'test'))`
3. `test false without neg`: Compare `if (test1 === 'test')`
4. `test false with neg`: Compare `if (!(test1 === 'test'))`

**Comparison**

The two expressions being compared are:

* `if (test === 'test')`
* `if (!(test === 'test'))`

These two expressions are essentially the same, as the `===` operator checks for both value and type equality. The only difference is that the second expression uses a negation (`!`) before the comparison.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **`if (test === 'test')`**
	* Pros:
		+ More intuitive and readable, as it directly checks for value equality.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the type checking overhead, especially when dealing with large datasets or complex data types.
2. **`if (!(test === 'test'))`**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be faster, as it avoids the type checking overhead and directly checks for negation.
	* Cons:
		+ Less intuitive and readable, as it requires a deeper understanding of operator precedence and negation.

**Library: None**

There are no libraries being used in this benchmark.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None mentioned. The expressions only use basic JavaScript syntax.

**Other alternatives:**

Alternative approaches to these expressions could include:

* Using a ternary expression (`test === 'test' ? true : false`)
* Using the `==` operator instead of `===`
* Using a more modern approach with nullish coalescing (`&&`, e.g., `if (test && test === 'test')`)

However, these alternatives are not being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is:
```javascript
var test = 'test'
var test1 = 'test1'
```
This code sets up two variables, `test` and `test1`, which will be used to evaluate the expressions.

Overall, this benchmark is testing the performance difference between two similar but distinct JavaScript expressions. The results indicate that there is a small performance advantage in using the negated comparison (`if (!(test === 'test'))`) due to its potential for faster execution. However, the actual performance impact may vary depending on specific use cases and environments.

Related benchmarks:

true vs false vs false vs true (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: test true without neg vs test true with neg vs test false without neg vs test false with neg

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test true without neg

test true with neg

test false without neg

test false with neg

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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