Benchmark: Test is Equal elo level 1 simple

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>
<script> const count=0; const count2=10;</script>

Tests:

123
count === 0;
1233
count === 10;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
123
1233

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 108 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
123	15875729.0 Ops/sec
1233	15838909.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested on the provided JSON and describe the options compared, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**What's being tested**

The test is comparing the performance of JavaScript code that checks for equality between two variables: `count` and `10`. The test cases are:

1. `count === 0;`
2. `count === 10;`

These test cases cover two scenarios: checking if a variable is equal to zero and checking if a variable is equal to a non-zero value.

**Options compared**

The options being compared are likely the JavaScript engine's performance optimizations for equality checks. The most common approaches are:

1. **Constant folding**: This optimization technique evaluates the expression as soon as it's encountered, without executing any code. If both `count` and `10` are constant values (e.g., numbers), the engine can evaluate the comparison directly.
2. **Type checking**: The engine checks the types of `count` and `10` before performing the comparison. This ensures that the comparison is done correctly, even if one or both variables are not numbers.
3. **Caching**: Some engines may cache the results of previous equality checks to avoid redundant comparisons.

**Pros and cons**

Here's a brief summary of each approach:

1. **Constant folding**:
	* Pros: Reduces the number of unnecessary calculations, improving performance in cases where both variables are constant.
	* Cons: May not be applicable when one or both variables are not constant values.
2. **Type checking**:
	* Pros: Ensures correct type and value comparisons, reducing the risk of errors.
	* Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to the extra step of type checking.
3. **Caching**:
	* Pros: Can improve performance by avoiding redundant calculations.
	* Cons: Requires significant memory resources for caching, which may not be feasible in all scenarios.

**Library usage**

The test case uses the Lodash library, which is a popular JavaScript utility library. In this specific test, the library is used to set up the initial values of `count` and `count2`. The exact purpose of this setup is unclear without more context, but it's likely used to create a controlled environment for testing.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in the provided code snippets. However, if you're interested in exploring other advanced techniques, some examples include:

* **Arrow functions**: Can be used to simplify and optimize equality checks.
* **Template literals**: Can be used to create string templates that might affect performance.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative benchmarking tools or approaches, consider the following options:

1. **BenchmarkJS**: A popular JavaScript benchmarking framework that provides a more comprehensive set of features and options.
2. **Benchpress**: Another popular benchmarking tool that focuses on providing accurate and reliable results.
3. **Microbenchmarking libraries**: Libraries like `micro-benchmark` or `fast-micro-benchmark` provide specialized tools for creating microbenchmarks.

Keep in mind that the choice of benchmarking tool or approach depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and programming language preferences.

Related benchmarks:

Test is Equal elo level 1 simple (version: 0)

Test is Equal elo level 1 simple

Comparing performance of: 123 vs 1233

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

123

1233

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):