Benchmark: binary versus branch

Script Preparation code:

var a,
    t = true,
    f = false,
    val = 'something',
    def = 'default';

Tests:

true (binary)
a = t && val || def;
false (binary)
a = f && val || def;
true (branch)
if (t) { a = val; } else { a = def; }
false (branch)
if (f) { a = val; } else { a = def; }
true (ternary)
a = t ? val : def;
false (ternary)
a = f ? val : def;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
true (binary)
false (binary)
true (branch)
false (branch)
true (ternary)
false (ternary)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between three approaches to evaluate conditional statements in JavaScript:

1. **Branching** (if-else statements): This approach uses traditional if-else statements to determine the value of `a`. It involves conditionally executing code blocks, which can lead to slower execution due to the overhead of branching instructions.

2. **Binary operators**: This approach uses binary operators (`&&` and `||`) to evaluate the expression `t && val || def`. Binary operators are generally faster than branching statements because they can be optimized by the JavaScript engine into a single instruction.

3. **Ternary operator**: This approach uses the ternary operator (`? :`) to evaluate the expression `t ? val : def`. The ternary operator is often considered more efficient than branching statements, as it allows for a single evaluation of the condition and its corresponding value.

**Pros and Cons:**

*   Branching (if-else):
    *   Pros: Easy to read and understand, well-supported by most JavaScript engines.
    *   Cons: Can lead to slower execution due to branching instructions.
*   Binary operators (`&&` and `||`):
    *   Pros: Generally faster than branching statements, can be optimized by the engine into a single instruction.
    *   Cons: Requires careful handling of conditions, can lead to unexpected behavior if not used correctly.
*   Ternary operator (`? :`):
    *   Pros: Can simplify code and reduce the number of branching instructions, often considered more efficient than traditional if-else statements.
    *   Cons: May be less readable for some developers, requires careful handling of conditions.

**Library/Function usage:**

None of the provided benchmark definitions use any external libraries or functions. However, JavaScript engines may optimize and execute these expressions differently based on their internal workings and caching mechanisms.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

None of the benchmark definitions explicitly utilize special JavaScript features like async/await, generators, or modern syntax (e.g., arrow functions, spread operators).

Other alternatives to test:

1.  **Arithmetic operations**: Instead of conditional statements, you can use arithmetic operations to evaluate expressions and measure their performance.

2.  **Bitwise operators**: Bitwise operators (`&`, `|`, `^`) could also be used as a third alternative for evaluating conditions, potentially offering better performance than traditional branching or binary operators.

3.  **Array operations**: Using array methods (e.g., `indexOf`, `every`) to evaluate expressions can provide another perspective on performance and efficiency in JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

binary versus branch (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: true (binary) vs false (binary) vs true (branch) vs false (branch) vs true (ternary) vs false (ternary)

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

true (binary)

false (binary)

true (branch)

false (branch)

true (ternary)

false (ternary)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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