Benchmark: noop vs conditional execution

Script Preparation code:

var no_Op = function() {};
var checkMe = [
  void 0,
  function(x, y) {
    x.n += y;
  },
  function(x, y) {
    x.n += y;
  },
  void 0,
  function(x,y) {
    x.n += y;
  },
  void 0,
  function(x, y) {
  	x.n += y;
  },
  void 0
];
var runMe = checkMe.map(fn => fn || no_Op);

Tests:

conditional
const accumulator = {n: 0}; for (let i = 0, fn; i < checkMe.lenght; i++) { fn = checkMe[i]; if (fn) { fn(accumulator, i); } }
no_Op
const accumulator = {n: 0}; for (let i = 0; i < runMe.length; i++) { runMe[i](accumulator, i); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
conditional
no_Op

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/18.5 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 18 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
conditional	498576416.0 Ops/sec
no_Op	61446404.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark test case and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons of those approaches, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The test case is designed to compare the performance of two approaches:

1. **Conditional Execution**: In this approach, a function (`fn`) is only executed if it exists in the `checkMe` array.
2. **No-Op (No Operation) Function**: In this approach, a no-op function (`no_Op`) is used as a fallback when `fn` does not exist in the `checkMe` array.

**Options Compared:**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Conditional Execution**: This approach uses an if statement to check if `fn` exists before executing it.
2. **No-Op Function**: This approach uses a no-op function (`no_Op`) as a fallback when `fn` does not exist.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Conditional Execution**:
	+ Pros: More accurate results, as the actual execution time of the non-existent functions is measured.
	+ Cons: May have slower performance due to the additional check.
* **No-Op Function**:
	+ Pros: Faster performance, as the no-op function does not require any execution time.
	+ Cons: May skew results if the no-op function is significantly faster or slower than the actual functions being executed.

**Library and Purpose:**

The `checkMe` array contains a mix of functions with different numbers of arguments (`x` and `y`). The `runMe` variable is created by mapping over `checkMe` and replacing non-existent functions with `no_Op`.

The purpose of this library is to provide a set of test cases that can be used to compare the performance of conditional execution versus no-op function usage.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**

This benchmark does not rely on any special JavaScript features or syntax, making it accessible to a wide range of developers.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to this test case, consider the following:

1. **Early Returns**: Instead of using an if statement, consider using early returns to skip over non-existent functions.
2. **Switch Statements**: If the number of possible functions is limited, consider using a switch statement instead of an array-based approach.
3. **Caching**: Consider caching the results of function lookups to avoid repeated checks.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may affect the accuracy or performance of your benchmark test case.

Related benchmarks:

noop vs conditional execution (version: 0)

Is it faster to run a noop (no-op, no op) function in javascript or is it faster to check if a function exist before calling it? let's find out!

Comparing performance of: conditional vs no_Op

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

conditional

no_Op

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):