Benchmark: More or equal - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var test = 10;

Tests:

more
if (test > 9) { console.log('good'); }
more or equall
if (test >= 9) { console.log('good'); }
equall
if (test == 10) { console.log('good'); }
===
if (test === 10) { console.log('good'); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
more
more or equall
equall
===

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which outlines how to prepare and execute a specific test case. In this case, the benchmark is about comparing different conditional statements in JavaScript.

Here's what's being tested:

* Three conditional statement types are compared:
	1. `if (test > 9)` : This checks if the value of `test` is greater than 9.
	2. `if (test >= 9)` : This checks if the value of `test` is greater than or equal to 9.
	3. `if (test == 10)` : This checks if the value of `test` is exactly equal to 10.
* The test cases are also comparing three different equality operators:
	1. `===` : This checks for both value and type equality.
	2. `==` : This checks only for value equality, ignoring type.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three conditional statement types (`if (test > 9)`, `if (test >= 9)`, and `if (test == 10)`) against each other. The same applies to the equality operators (`===` and `==`).

Here's a brief pros and cons of each approach:

* `if (test > 9)` :
	+ Pros: Fast, straightforward.
	+ Cons: May not be exact equality, may lead to false negatives.
* `if (test >= 9)` :
	+ Pros: More inclusive than `>`, handles edge cases better.
	+ Cons: Slightly slower due to the comparison.
* `if (test == 10)` :
	+ Pros: Exact equality check, less prone to false positives.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to the extra comparison.

The same reasoning applies to the equality operators:

* `===` :
	+ Pros: Most strict and reliable.
	+ Cons: Slowest due to type checking.
* `==` :
	+ Pros: Faster, but less reliable due to type ignoring.
	+ Cons: More prone to false positives.

**Libraries Used**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's worth noting that some libraries like Lodash or TypeScript might be used implicitly due to their widespread adoption and influence on modern JavaScript development.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the test cases explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard language (ES6+). If you were to modify the benchmark to include more advanced features, you might consider using:

* `const`/`let` declarations for better variable scoping and hoisting.
* Arrow functions (`=>`) for concise function definitions.
* Template literals (`\`${...}\``) for improved string interpolation.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for microbenchmarking JavaScript performance include:

* Micro- benchmarking frameworks like Benchmark.js or jsperf.
* Browser-based testing platforms like jsPerf, CodePen, or Repl.it.
* Node.js-specific tools like n Bench or Benchpress.

Keep in mind that each tool has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and desired level of complexity.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; GM1917) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/79.0.3945.79 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 79 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
more	81029.7 Ops/sec
more or equall	79165.7 Ops/sec
equall	78285.3 Ops/sec
===	76876.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

More or equal (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: more vs more or equall vs equall vs ===

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

more

more or equall

equall

===

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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