Benchmark: Cache in OR - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var data = {
	currentTile: {tileID: 659}
}

function fa(from) {
    return from.currentTile.tileID == 320 ||
        from.currentTile.tileID == 323 ||
        from.currentTile.tileID == 656 ||
        from.currentTile.tileID == 659;
}

function fb(from) {
  	var t = from.currentTile.tileID;
    return t == 320 || t == 323 || t == 656 || t == 659;
}

Tests:

FA
fa(data);
FB
fb(data);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
FA
FB

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll explain the benchmark, options compared, pros and cons of those approaches, library usage, special JavaScript features, and alternatives.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark tests the performance of two functions, `fa` and `fb`, which are designed to check if a specific condition is met based on a `currentTile` object's properties. The `data` object is prepared beforehand with a specific tile ID.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared in this benchmark are:

1. **`fa(data)`**: This option uses a function called `fa`, which checks if the `tileID` property of `from.currentTile` matches one of four predefined values (320, 323, 656, or 659). The function returns `true` if any of these values match.
2. **`fb(data)`**: This option uses a different function called `fb`, which also checks the same condition but with a simpler implementation. Instead of using the `==` operator to compare values, it uses the `===` strict equality operator and directly compares the `tileID` value with four predefined numbers.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **`fa(data)`**:
	* Pros: More readable code, as the conditions are explicitly listed.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the additional comparisons and the use of multiple `==` operators.
2. **`fb(data)`**:
	* Pros: Slightly faster execution, thanks to the use of `===` strict equality operator and fewer comparisons.
	* Cons: Less readable code, as the conditions are not explicitly listed.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's worth noting that both functions rely on the existence of an object with a `currentTile` property, which suggests that the test may be running in a context where such an object is expected to exist (e.g., as part of a larger JavaScript application).

**Special JavaScript Features**

There are no special JavaScript features mentioned in the provided code. However, it's worth noting that the use of `===` strict equality operator is a modern feature introduced in ECMAScript 12.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to compare these two functions might include:

* Using a loop to iterate over the predefined values instead of explicit comparisons.
* Using a different data structure, such as an array or set, to store the preconditions and then check against it.
* Adding additional conditions or tests to compare with `fa(data)` and `fb(data)`.
* Running the benchmark with multiple input values to see how performance changes.

Keep in mind that the best approach will depend on the specific requirements of the test case, such as the desired level of readability vs. performance optimization.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2025 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/65.0.3325.146 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 65 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
FA	2848960.0 Ops/sec
FB	2885261.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Cache in OR (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: FA vs FB

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

FA

FB

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):