Benchmark: equality speeds - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

window.num = 0;
window.obj = new String('0');
window.str = '0';

Tests:

Loose equality
num == num; obj == obj; str == str; num == obj; num == str; obj == str; null == undefined; obj == null; obj == undefined; NaN == NaN;
Strict equality
num === num; obj === obj; str === str; num === obj; num === str; obj === str; null === undefined; obj === null; obj === undefined; NaN === NaN;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Loose equality
Strict equality

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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two different types of equality comparisons:

1. **Loose Equality**: This test checks for loose equality between various values, such as numbers, strings, objects, and null/undefined.
2. **Strict Equality**: This test checks for strict equality between the same values, which is more strict than loose equality.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code initializes several variables:
```javascript
window.num = 0;
window.obj = new String('0');
window.str = '0';
```
These variables are used in both test cases and represent different types of values:

* `num`: an integer (number)
* `obj`: a string object created with the `new` keyword
* `str`: a string literal

**Html Preparation Code**

The html preparation code is empty, which means no HTML elements are being manipulated or used in this benchmark.

**Comparison Options**

There are two main comparison options:

1. **Loose Equality**: Checks for loose equality between values using the `==` operator.
	* Pros: More lenient than strict equality, can handle implicit conversions (e.g., `NaN == NaN`).
	* Cons: May produce incorrect results due to implicit conversions or unexpected behavior.
2. **Strict Equality**: Checks for strict equality between values using the `===` operator.
	* Pros: More precise and predictable than loose equality.
	* Cons: May produce different results due to differences in data types.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark also tests specific scenarios, such as:

* `null == undefined`: This test checks if null is considered equal to undefined in JavaScript. In most cases, this returns false.
* `NaN == NaN`: This test checks if NaN (Not a Number) is considered equal to itself. In most cases, this returns true.

**Libraries and Special JS Features**

There are no libraries used in this benchmark. However, it does utilize some specific JavaScript features:

* **String objects**: The `new String('0')` constructor creates a string object, which is then assigned to the `obj` variable.
* **NaN (Not a Number)**: NaN is a special value in JavaScript that represents an invalid or unreliable result.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for testing equality comparisons might include:

* Using a different comparison operator, such as `===` with a loose option (e.g., `==` with strict mode enabled).
* Adding more test cases to cover edge cases, such as comparing values of different data types (e.g., number, string, object, etc.).
* Using a testing framework or library specifically designed for benchmarking JavaScript code.

Keep in mind that this benchmark is just one example of how equality comparisons can be tested. Depending on the specific use case and requirements, other approaches might be more suitable.

Related benchmarks:

equality speeds (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Loose equality vs Strict equality

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Loose equality

Strict equality

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):