Benchmark: Which equals operator (== vs ===) is faster?

Tests:

test equality
var n = 0; while(true) { n++; if(n==100000) break; }
test strict equality
var n = 0; while(true) { n++; if(n===100000) break; }
string to int
var n = 0; while(true) { n++; if(n=='100000') break; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test equality
test strict equality
string to int

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 llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark test cases and results.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is called "Which equals operator (== vs ===)  is faster?" and its purpose is to compare the performance of two different equality operators in JavaScript: `==` (loose equality) and `===` (strict equality).

**Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **test equality**: This test case uses the loose equality operator `==` to check if a variable `n` equals 100,000.
```javascript
var n = 0;
while(true) {
    n++;
    if(n == 100000)
        break;
}
```
2. **test strict equality**: This test case uses the strict equality operator `===` to check if a variable `n` equals 100,000.
```javascript
var n = 0;
while(true) {
    n++;
    if(n === 100000)
        break;
}
```
3. **string to int**: This test case attempts to convert a string `'100000'` to an integer and then compare it with the variable `n`. However, this is not a valid equality comparison and will likely throw an error.
```javascript
var n = 0;
while(true) {
    n++;
    if(n == '100000')
        break;
}
```
**Library/Feature**

None of the test cases use any external libraries or special JavaScript features.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares three different equality operators:

1. `==` (loose equality)
2. `===` (strict equality)
3. Attempting to compare a string with an integer using `==`

**Pros/Cons and Considerations**

* **Loose Equality (`==`)**: This operator checks if the two values are equal, but also allows for type coercion. For example, `5 == '5'` would return true.
	+ Pros: simpler to read and write
	+ Cons: can lead to unexpected behavior due to type coercion
* **Strict Equality (`===`)**: This operator checks if both the value and the type are equal.
	+ Pros: more secure and predictable
	+ Cons: may be less readable or convenient in some cases

**Alternatives**

In this case, there aren't any alternative equality operators being compared. However, when choosing between `==` and `===`, you can consider the following alternatives:

* Use `===` whenever possible to ensure strict equality checks.
* Use `==` only when you explicitly want to allow for type coercion or are working with legacy code.

**Results**

The latest benchmark results show that:

* The `test equality` case (using `==`) executes at approximately 6,300 executions per second.
* The `test strict equality` case (using `===`) executes at slightly lower speed than the first case, around 6,294 executions per second.
* The `string to int` case attempts to compare a string with an integer using `==`, which is not a valid comparison and will likely throw an error. As expected, this test case performs poorly, executing at approximately 881 executions per second.

Overall, the results suggest that there might be a small performance difference between using `==` and `===` in some cases, but it's likely negligible for most practical purposes.

Related benchmarks:

Which equals operator (== vs ===) is faster? (version: 0)

Is there a performance benefit to replacing == with ===?

Comparing performance of: test equality vs test strict equality vs string to int

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test equality

test strict equality

string to int

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):