Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
"array length === 0" vs "!(0 in array)"
(version: 0)
this is really stupid but is surprisingly close i guess
Comparing performance of:
array.length vs index check
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var get_array = () => Math.random() > 0.5 ? [5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30] : []
Tests:
array.length
var is_empty = get_array().length === 0
index check
var is_empty = !(0 in get_array())
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
array.length
index check
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 definition and its test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and analyzed. **Benchmark Definition:** The benchmark is defined by two different approaches to check if an array is empty: 1. `var is_empty = get_array().length === 0` 2. `var is_empty = !(0 in get_array())` These two approaches test the same condition, but use different syntax and semantics. **Approach 1: Using Array Length** This approach checks if the length of an array is equal to 0. The `length` property returns the number of elements in the array. Pros: * Simple and straightforward. * Easy to read and understand. Cons: * Requires modern JavaScript versions (ECMAScript 5+) that support dynamic property access (`get_array().length === 0`). * May not be supported by older browsers or environments. **Approach 2: Using Index Check** This approach checks if the array is empty by checking if `0` is present in the array using the `in` operator. An empty array will return `false` because there are no properties (including `0`) to check for presence. Pros: * Works in older browsers and environments that don't support dynamic property access. * Can be used with older JavaScript versions. Cons: * Less readable and less intuitive than Approach 1. * May have performance implications due to the overhead of checking for presence. **Library Used:** None of the provided code uses any external libraries. The `get_array` function is defined inline, which means it's a self-contained, standalone function that generates an array with a random length between 0 and 6. **Special JS Feature or Syntax:** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark definition. Both approaches use standard JavaScript syntax. **Other Alternatives:** If you wanted to compare these two approaches in more detail, you could also consider: * Using the `Array.prototype.length` property and checking if it's equal to 0. * Using a library like Lodash (`_.isEmpty`) or Underscore (`_.isEmpty`) which provides a standardized way of checking for empty arrays. * Using a different approach altogether, such as using a custom implementation that checks for the presence of a sentinel value (e.g., `null` or `-1`) in the array. For a complete benchmarking scenario, you might also want to include additional test cases that cover other aspects of array manipulation, such as concatenation, indexing, and sorting.
Related benchmarks:
Array.prototype.some() vs. Filter vs. Array.prototype.indexOf()
at(-1) vs (length - 1)
Shorten array -- slice vs filter
.at vs length -1
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?