Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Trust conditional test
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Trust existing vs Trust new
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
function Vnode(tag, key, attrs0, children0, text, dom) { return {tag: tag, key: key, attrs: attrs0, children: children0, text: text, dom: dom, domSize: undefined, state: undefined, events: undefined, instance: undefined} }
Tests:
Trust existing
function trust( html ) { if( html == null ) html = ""; return Vnode("<", undefined, undefined, html, undefined, undefined) } for( var i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { if( i < 50000 ) trust( null ); else trust( 'test' ); }
Trust new
function trust( html ) { return Vnode("<", undefined, undefined, html || "", undefined, undefined) } for( var i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { if( i < 50000 ) trust( null ); else trust( 'test' ); }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Trust existing
Trust new
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):
**Benchmark Overview** The provided benchmark measures the performance of two approaches for handling null values in JavaScript. The benchmark is designed to test how quickly these approaches can create and process virtual DOM nodes. **Script Preparation Code: Vnode Function** The `Vnode` function is a custom-built function that represents a virtual DOM node. It takes six parameters: 1. `tag`: the tag name of the virtual DOM node 2. `key`: the key of the virtual DOM node 3. `attrs0`: an array of attribute objects (not used in this benchmark) 4. `children0`: an array of child nodes (not used in this benchmark) 5. `text`: the text content of the virtual DOM node 6. `dom`: a reference to the underlying DOM element The function returns an object representing the virtual DOM node, with additional properties that are not initialized. **Html Preparation Code** There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means the benchmark only tests the JavaScript implementation. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark consists of two test cases: 1. **Trust existing**: This test case creates 100,000 virtual DOM nodes using a null value in the `html` parameter. The function `trust( html )` is called with `null` for the first 50,000 iterations and `'test'` for the remaining 50,000 iterations. 2. **Trust new**: This test case is similar to the previous one, but it uses the ternary operator `html || ""` to ensure that the `html` parameter is not null. **Library: Vnode** The `Vnode` function uses a virtual DOM library, which is not specified in the benchmark definition. However, based on the implementation, it appears to be a custom-built library for managing virtual DOM nodes. **Special JS Feature/Syntax: None** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. **Pros and Cons of Different Approaches** 1. **Null Value Handling**: * Approach 1 (Trust existing): Uses the `||` operator to ensure that `html` is not null, which may introduce unnecessary computations. * Approach 2 (Trust new): Uses the ternary operator to explicitly set a default value for `html`, which can improve performance by reducing the number of null checks. * **Pros and Cons**: Approach 1 may be slower due to the additional computations, while Approach 2 is more efficient but may not handle edge cases as well. 2. **Ternary Operator Usage**: * Approach 1 (Trust existing): Uses the `if` statement with a conditional check for `i < 50000`, which can lead to slower performance. * Approach 2 (Trust new): Uses the ternary operator with an unconditional expression, which can improve performance by reducing branching. * **Pros and Cons**: Approach 1 may be slower due to the additional branching, while Approach 2 is more efficient but may not provide accurate results for all input values. **Other Alternatives** Alternative approaches could include: 1. Using a different null value handling mechanism, such as `String.isEmpty` or `isNaN`. 2. Implementing a custom null check library or function. 3. Using a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler to optimize the JavaScript code. 4. Profile-guided optimization using tools like Google Chrome DevTools. Overall, the benchmark highlights the importance of optimizing null value handling and ternary operator usage in JavaScript performance-critical applications.
Related benchmarks:
if vs noop
undefined checking
typeof undefined vs falsey check
Nullish coalescing, logical OR
type coercion
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?