Benchmark: if and direct call

HTML Preparation code:


<div id=''></div>

Script Preparation code:

for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {}

Tests:

if
var check = true; var i=0; for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { if(check) { i++ } }
direct call
var i=0; for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { i++ }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
if
direct call

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.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:

1. **"if"`**: This test case measures the performance of a conditional statement with an `if` branch, where the condition is set to `true`.
2. **"direct call"`**: This test case measures the performance of a simple loop that increments a variable without any conditional statements.

**What's being tested**

In both test cases, the focus is on measuring the performance difference between two approaches:

1. The presence or absence of an `if` branch (in the first test case) and
2. A direct increment operation versus a loop with an increment statement (in the second test case).

**Options Compared**

Here are the options being compared in each test case:

* **"if"`**: Presence/absence of an `if` branch.
	+ Pros: Can provide insights into the impact of conditional statements on performance.
	+ Cons: May not accurately represent typical use cases where branches are unavoidable.
* **"direct call"`**: Direct increment operation versus a loop with an increment statement.
	+ Pros: Can help identify performance differences between simple, branching code and loop-based code.
	+ Cons: May not account for the overhead of initializing variables or setup.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Loop Iterations**: Both test cases use 10,000 iterations. This is a relatively high number, which can help mask any minor variations in performance due to cache effects or other micro-optimizations.
2. **No Special Features or Syntax**: Neither test case uses special JavaScript features or syntax that may skew the results (e.g., async/await, generators, or experimental APIs).
3. **No External Dependencies**: The benchmark scripts are self-contained and do not rely on external dependencies, which can help isolate performance differences between the tested approaches.

**Library Usage**

None of the test cases use any external libraries.

**Special JS Features or Syntax (None)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these test cases.

**Alternatives**

To run similar benchmarks, you could consider using other benchmarking frameworks or tools, such as:

1. **Benchmark.js**: A lightweight, modular benchmarking library for Node.js.
2. **Testify**: A testing framework that includes a benchmarking module for running performance tests.
3. **jsbench**: A simple, command-line tool for creating and running JavaScript benchmarks.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives may have different features, syntax, or focus areas than MeasureThat.net, so you may need to adapt your benchmarking approach accordingly.

Related benchmarks:

if and direct call (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: if vs direct call

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

if

direct call

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):