Benchmark: Bitwise vs String feature flags

Script Preparation code:

var BITWISE_FEATURE_A = 1;
var BITWISE_FEATURE_B = BITWISE_FEATURE_A<<1;
var BITWISE_FEATURE_C = BITWISE_FEATURE_B<<1;
var BITWISE_ENABLED = BITWISE_FEATURE_A ^ BITWISE_FEATURE_C;

var STRING_FEATURE_A = "yellow_scrollbar";
var STRING_FEATURE_B = "green_box";
var STRING_FEATURE_C = "blue_banner";
var STRING_ENABLED = STRING_FEATURE_A + STRING_FEATURE_C;

Tests:

Bitwise - Existing
BITWISE_ENABLED & BITWISE_FEATURE_A === BITWISE_FEATURE_A
Bitwise - Non-Existing
BITWISE_ENABLED & BITWISE_FEATURE_B === BITWISE_FEATURE_B
String - Existing
STRING_ENABLED.indexOf(STRING_FEATURE_C) !== -1
String - Non-Existing
STRING_ENABLED.indexOf(STRING_FEATURE_B) !== -1

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Bitwise - Existing
Bitwise - Non-Existing
String - Existing
String - Non-Existing

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 provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark defines two feature flags:

1. `BITWISE_FEATURE_A` (an integer value)
2. `STRING_FEATURE_A`, `STRING_FEATURE_B`, and `STRING_FEATURE_C` (string values)

Two bitwise operations are performed on these feature flags:
	* `BITWISE_FEATURE_A << 1` (left shift by 1 bit)
	* `BITWISE_FEATURE_B << 1` (left shift by 1 bit, which is not a valid operation since `BITWISE_FEATURE_B` is not defined)

Additionally, two string operations are performed:
	* Concatenation: `STRING_ENABLED = STRING_FEATURE_A + STRING_FEATURE_C`

The benchmark consists of four test cases:

**Test Cases**

1. **Bitwise - Existing**: Check if the bitwise AND operation between `BITWISE_ENABLED` and `BITWISE_FEATURE_A` equals `BITWISE_FEATURE_A`. (`BITWISE_ENABLED & BITWISE_FEATURE_A === BITWISE_FEATURE_A`)
2. **Bitwise - Non-Existing**: Check if the bitwise AND operation between `BITWISE_ENABLED` and `BITWISE_FEATURE_B` equals `BITWISE_FEATURE_B`. (Note: `BITWISE_FEATURE_B` is not defined in the benchmark definition)
3. **String - Existing**: Check if the string index of `STRING_ENABLED` contains `STRING_FEATURE_C`. (`STRING_ENABLED.indexOf(STRING_FEATURE_C) !== -1`)
4. **String - Non-Existing**: Check if the string index of `STRING_ENABLED` contains `STRING_FEATURE_B`. (Note: `STRING_FEATURE_B` is not defined in the benchmark definition)

**Comparison**

The test cases are comparing the behavior of bitwise and string operations on these feature flags.

* Bitwise operations:
	+ `BITWISE_FEATURE_A << 1` is a valid operation since it's performing a left shift by 1 bit.
	+ `BITWISE_FEATURE_B << 1` is not a valid operation since `BITWISE_FEATURE_B` is not defined. This might indicate an error or omission in the benchmark definition.
* String operations:
	+ Concatenation: `STRING_ENABLED = STRING_FEATURE_A + STRING_FEATURE_C`
	+ Indexing: `STRING_ENABLED.indexOf(STRING_FEATURE_C)` and `STRING_ENABLED.indexOf(STRING_FEATURE_B)`

**Pros/Cons of each approach**

1. **Bitwise - Existing**: This test case is testing the correct behavior of bitwise AND operation on a defined feature flag.
2. **Bitwise - Non-Existing**: This test case is likely to fail since `BITWISE_FEATURE_B` is not defined, and attempting to perform a bitwise AND operation will result in an error or undefined behavior.
3. **String - Existing**: This test case is testing the correct behavior of string indexing on a concatenated feature flag.
4. **String - Non-Existing**: Similar to the Bitwise - Non-Existing test case, this one might fail due to `STRING_FEATURE_B` not being defined.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark definition contains some missing or invalid data (e.g., `BITWISE_FEATURE_B`).
* The test cases assume that the feature flags are initialized correctly and have the expected values.
* The benchmark results show a mix of successful and failed test cases, which might indicate issues with the benchmark setup or hardware/OS variations.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for running microbenchmarks on JavaScript could include:

1. Micro- benchmarking libraries like ` Benchmark.js` or `Benchmark-chrome`
2. Custom benchmarking scripts using Node.js's built-in timing functions (e.g., `process.cpuTimeDomain`)
3. Browser-specific benchmarking tools, such as Google Chrome's `benchmarks` tool

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 9; ANE-LX1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/81.0.4044.117 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 81 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Bitwise - Existing	379446.3 Ops/sec
Bitwise - Non-Existing	386021.7 Ops/sec
String - Existing	563627.4 Ops/sec
String - Non-Existing	506159.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Bitwise vs String feature flags (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Bitwise - Existing vs Bitwise - Non-Existing vs String - Existing vs String - Non-Existing

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Bitwise - Existing

Bitwise - Non-Existing

String - Existing

String - Non-Existing

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):