Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
somethin
(version: 0)
some test
Comparing performance of:
equals empty vs length vs emptyequals vs emtptylength
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
equals empty
var a = ""; if(a == "") { return };
length
var a = ""; if(a.length == 0) { return };
emptyequals
var a = "asfljjhlasfdhjasdffadljkjfhldsalhjkadfsljkafdsklfadslklkfajds"; if(a == "") { return };
emtptylength
var a = "asfljjhlasfdhjasdffadljkjfhldsalhjkadfsljkafdsklfadslklkfajds"; if(a.length == 0) { return };
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (4)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
equals empty
length
emptyequals
emtptylength
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):
I'll break down the provided benchmark JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons. **Benchmark Definition** The provided `Benchmark Definition` is a simple JavaScript code snippet: ```javascript var a = ""; if(a == "") { return; } ``` This code checks if the string variable `a` is empty by using the `==` operator for equality. If `a` is empty, the function returns immediately. **Individual Test Cases** There are four test cases: 1. **equals empty**: This test case checks if the condition `if(a == "") { return; }` is executed. 2. **length**: This test case checks if the condition `if(a.length == 0) { return; }` is executed. 3. **emptyequals**: This test case uses a longer string and checks if the condition `if(a == "") { return; }` is executed. 4. **emtptylength**: This test case uses a longer string and checks if the condition `if(a.length == 0) { return; }` is executed. **Comparison of Approaches** The main difference between these approaches is the way they check for an empty string: * `== ""`: This approach uses the `==` operator, which compares the value of `a` with an empty string using the value comparison method. This can be slow and may lead to unexpected results due to type coercion (e.g., null or NaN being considered as strings). * `length == 0`: This approach checks the length of the string directly. This is generally faster and more accurate, as it avoids type coercion. **Pros and Cons** * **`== ""` approach**: + Pros: Simple to implement. + Cons: May be slow due to value comparison, prone to unexpected results. * **`length == 0` approach**: + Pros: Generally faster and more accurate. + Cons: Requires checking the length of the string. **Library Usage** There is no library usage in these benchmark definitions. However, some JavaScript engines (e.g., V8) may use internal optimizations or features that affect the execution time of this code. **Special JS Features/Syntax** None of the provided benchmark definitions use any special JavaScript features or syntax. **Other Alternatives** If you want to test different approaches or variations on these tests, here are some alternative benchmark cases: * Test cases with `null` instead of an empty string: ```javascript if(a == null) { return; } ``` or ```javascript if(a === null) { return; } ``` * Test cases with a longer string: ```javascript var a = "a".repeat(1000); if(a == "") { return; } ``` Keep in mind that these alternative tests may not be representative of real-world use cases, but they can help you understand the performance characteristics of different approaches.
Related benchmarks:
> vs ==
!= vs >= war
Compare switch vs dictionary
Compare switch vs dictionary complex
Compare switch vs dictionary complex 1000
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?