Benchmark: two condition if vs includes compare

Script Preparation code:

var item = 'cat';

Tests:

if compare
item == 'dog' || item == 'jump';
includes
['dog', 'jump'].includes(item);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
if compare
includes

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 is being tested, compared, and analyzed.

**Benchmark Definition**

The `Benchmark Definition` json represents the test case being run. In this case, it's a simple JavaScript condition:

- `item == 'dog' || item == 'jump';`

This is equivalent to the following code:
```javascript
if (item === 'dog') {
  // do something
} else if (item === 'jump') {
  // do something else
}
```
The test case compares two values: `item` and the string literals `'dog'` and `'jump'`.

**Comparison Options**

There are two comparison options being compared:

1. **If-Else Chain**: This is a traditional approach to conditional execution, where the code checks each condition in sequence, and executes the corresponding block of code.
2. **Includes Method**: This uses the `includes()` method provided by JavaScript's Array prototype, which checks if an element exists within the array.

**Pros and Cons**

- **If-Else Chain**
  - Pros:
    * Easy to understand and implement for simple conditions
    * Can be optimized using techniques like short-circuiting (e.g., checking `item === 'dog'` before evaluating `item === 'jump'`)
  - Cons:
    * More verbose and harder to manage complex conditionals
    * Less performant due to the sequential evaluation of conditions

- **Includes Method**
  - Pros:
    * More concise and readable for simple checks
    * Optimized for performance, as it uses a native implementation under the hood
  - Cons:
    * Requires an array or string prototype with `includes()` method support (not all browsers support this)
    * Can be slower than if-else chain due to additional overhead

**Other Considerations**

*   **Library Usage**: In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. However, in other benchmarks, libraries like Lodash might be used for various functions.
*   **Special JS Features or Syntax**: There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this case.

**Alternative Approaches**

1.  **Regex-based checks**: Another approach could involve using regular expressions to match patterns in the `item` string.
2.  **Template Literals**: You could also use template literals to create a more readable and performant comparison.
3.  **Bloom Filters or Similar Data Structures**: If you need to optimize for very large datasets, using data structures like Bloom filters can be an effective approach.

Here is the benchmark preparation code in JavaScript:

```javascript
function prepareBenchmark(item) {
    var item = 'cat';
}

function testIfCompare() {
    return (item == 'dog' || item == 'jump');
}

var item = 'cat';

console.log(testIfCompare());
```

And here's how you would set up the benchmark using MeasureThat.net:

1.  Create a new benchmark in MeasureThat.net.
2.  Paste your `prepareBenchmark()` function and add it to the "Script Preparation Code" section of your benchmark.
3.  Add your `testIfCompare()` function to the "Test Name" section.
4.  Copy your `item = 'cat';` line and add it to the HTML preparation code (if applicable).
5.  Run the benchmark.

The resulting raw UA string and other relevant data will be displayed for you, showing how different browsers perform on this specific test case.

Related benchmarks:

two condition if vs includes compare (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: if compare vs includes

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

if compare

includes

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):