Benchmark: > vs == - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

==
let n = 0; while(true){ n++; if(n == 10000) { break; } }
>
let n = 0; while(true) { n++; if(n > 9999) { break; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
==
>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into explaining the JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition and Comparison**

The provided benchmark compares two common equality operators in JavaScript: `===` ( strict equality) and `==` (loose equality). The comparison is between two approaches:

1. **Strict Equality (`===`)**
	* This operator checks for both value and type equality.
	* In the context of this benchmark, it means that `n` must be exactly equal to 10000 (both in value and type).
2. **Loose Equality (`==`)**
	* This operator only checks for value equality, ignoring type differences.
	* In the context of this benchmark, it means that `n` can be any number close to 10000.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Strict Equality (`===`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Provides more accurate results in terms of strict equality.
		+ Less prone to false positives due to type coercion.
	* Cons:
		+ May result in slower performance due to the additional check for type equality.
2. **Loose Equality (`==`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Often faster than strict equality due to less overhead.
		+ Can be useful when dealing with numbers that are close, but not exactly equal (e.g., due to floating-point precision issues).
	* Cons:
		+ May lead to false positives if the types are different (e.g., `2 == 3`).
		+ Less predictable results.

**Other Considerations**

In general, when working with numerical values, `===` is a safer choice to ensure exact equality. However, when dealing with strings or other non-numeric types, `==` might be more suitable due to its flexibility.

**Library and Special Features**

There are no specific libraries used in these benchmarks. However, the use of `while (true)` loops is notable. In JavaScript, `while` loops can be useful for creating infinite loops, which is what's happening here.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives could have been explored, such as:

* Using `===` with a small tolerance for floating-point precision issues.
* Using `==` and then performing a subsequent type check to verify the result.
* Comparing the performance of other equality operators, like `!==` or `===` with a custom implementation.

**Additional Considerations**

When running benchmarks, it's essential to consider factors that might affect performance, such as:

* Browser version and platform compatibility
* JavaScript engine optimization
* Cache behavior and memoization effects

Keep in mind that the results may vary depending on the specific use case, environment, and hardware configuration.

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/68.0.3440.106 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 68 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
==	217077.9 Ops/sec
>	218852.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

> vs == (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: == vs >

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

==

>

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):