Benchmark: noop vs conditional execution (fixed)

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.length; 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:

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's being tested, compared, and its pros/cons.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark is testing two approaches:

1. **No-Op (no operation)**: This approach involves running a function that does nothing (`var no_Op = function() {};`).
2. **Conditional execution**: This approach involves checking if a function exists before calling it (`var checkMe = [...]; var runMe = checkMe.map(fn => fn || no_Op);`). The `||` operator returns the first truthy value, so if a function is present in the array, its original code will be executed; otherwise, the `no_Op` function is called.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **No-Op**: This approach has several pros:
	+ It's always faster since it does nothing.
	+ It's more efficient because it doesn't check for function existence.
	+ However, it might not accurately represent real-world scenarios where functions are being called frequently.
* **Conditional execution**:
	+ Pros:
		- It better represents real-world scenarios where functions need to be checked for existence before calling them.
		- It can provide more accurate results compared to the no-op approach.
	+ Cons:
		- It's slower due to the function existence check.

**Library/Functionality:**

The `map()` method is used in both test cases. `map()` applies a specified function to every element of an array and returns a new array with the results. In this case, it's used to transform the `checkMe` array into `runMe`, where each element is either the original function or the `no_Op` function if the original function doesn't exist.

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax:**

There are no special features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, note that some versions of JavaScript may have slightly different behavior for the `||` operator or `map()` method.

**Other Alternatives:**

In theory, other approaches could be used to test these scenarios:

* Instead of using `map()`, you could use a loop with an index to iterate through the array and apply each function to a variable (`fn = checkMe[i]; if (fn) { fn(accumulator, i); }`).
* You could also use `filter()` instead of `map()` to remove non-existent functions from the array before calling the remaining ones.
* Another approach would be to use a `for...of` loop or an iterator to iterate through the array and apply each function.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide exactly the same results as the original benchmark, especially considering factors like optimization, caching, and browser-specific behavior.

Related benchmarks:

noop vs conditional execution (fixed) (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

No previous run results

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