Benchmark: array.length vs array.length > 0 2

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
var i = 0;

Tests:

array length
if (arr.length) { i = 1; } else { i = 1; }
array length > 0
if (arr.length > 0) { i = 1; } else { i = 1; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array length
array length > 0

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 123 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array length	660503104.0 Ops/sec
array length > 0	671737920.0 Ops/sec

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 JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark definition is a simple JavaScript code snippet that tests two different approaches to check if an array is not empty:

1. `arr.length` (test case 1)
2. `arr.length > 0` (test case 2)

In both cases, the goal is to set `i` to 1 inside the conditional block.

**Options Compared**
The benchmark compares two different approaches:

1. **Checking for zero length**: `arr.length` checks if the array has a length of exactly 0.
2. **Checking for positive length**: `arr.length > 0` checks if the array has a positive length (i.e., at least 1 element).

**Pros and Cons**

* Checking for zero length (`arr.length`):
	+ Pros:
		- More accurate, as it checks for exactly 0 elements.
		- May be faster, since it's a single operation.
	+ Cons:
		- Can lead to false positives if the array is empty but contains null or undefined values.
* Checking for positive length (`arr.length > 0`):
	+ Pros:
		- Less prone to false positives due to null or undefined values.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower, since it requires an additional comparison.

**Library and Purpose**
None of the provided benchmark code snippets use any external libraries. The purpose of these benchmarks is to compare the performance of two different array length checking approaches in JavaScript.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**
None of the provided code snippets use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ES5/ES6 syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to test more sophisticated array length checking scenarios, you could consider using libraries like:

* Lodash: `lodash.isArray(arr)` and `lodash.isEmpty(arr)`
* Array.prototype.length checks with additional optimizations (e.g., using `Uint32Array` or `Float64Array` for large arrays)

However, for simple benchmarking purposes like this one, the built-in JavaScript methods are sufficient.

**Benchmark Preparation Code Explanation**
The script preparation code is:
```javascript
var arr = [];
var i = 0;
```
This initializes an empty array (`arr`) and sets a variable `i` to 0. The purpose of this setup is to create a fresh, empty array for each benchmark iteration.

Note that the HTML preparation code is empty, which suggests that this benchmark doesn't require any additional HTML elements or setup beyond the JavaScript code itself.

Related benchmarks:

array.length vs array.length > 0 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: array length vs array length > 0

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array length

array length > 0

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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