Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
If-or-object-2
(version: 4)
Comparing performance of:
if-manual vs objects vs set
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var obj = { created: true, name: true, email: true, service: true }; var set = new Set(['created', 'name', 'email', 'service']); var metric = 'service';
Tests:
if-manual
if (metric === 'created' || metric === 'name' || metric === 'email' || metric === 'service') { var i = 1; }
objects
if (obj[metric]) { var i = 1; }
set
if (set.has(metric)) { var i = 1; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
if-manual
objects
set
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark measures the performance of JavaScript code that performs conditional checks using different approaches: manual string comparison, object property access, and set membership testing. **Options Compared** There are three options compared: 1. **Manual String Comparison**: The first option uses a simple if-statement with manual string comparison using `metric === 'service'`. 2. **Object Property Access**: The second option uses an object's property access (`obj[metric]`) to check if the value is true. 3. **Set Membership Testing**: The third option uses a Set data structure (`set.has(metric)`) to test membership. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** * **Manual String Comparison** * Pros: Simple, easy to understand, and suitable for small code snippets. * Cons: Can be slower due to string comparison overhead. * **Object Property Access** * Pros: Fast and efficient when accessing object properties, but may incur additional overhead due to property lookup. * Cons: May not work as expected if the property is not found or is a symbol. * **Set Membership Testing** * Pros: Fast and efficient for large datasets, but requires more memory to store the Set data structure. * Cons: May incur additional overhead due to Set operations. **Library/Technology Used** None of the benchmark tests use any specific JavaScript library or technology beyond standard ECMAScript features. **Special JS Features/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark, as all options follow standard ECMAScript syntax and semantics. **Alternatives** If you're looking for alternatives to measure performance or compare different code approaches, consider the following options: * **Benchmarking Libraries**: Use dedicated benchmarking libraries like WebPageTest, BenchmarkJS, or Microbenchmark.js. * **Performance Profilers**: Utilize built-in performance profilers in your browser or IDE to identify bottlenecks and optimize code. * **JavaScript Engines**: Compare performance across different JavaScript engines, such as V8 (used by Chrome), SpiderMonkey (used by Firefox), or V8-like engines. Keep in mind that benchmarking is an essential aspect of software development, and using multiple approaches can help you make informed decisions about optimization strategies for your specific use cases.
Related benchmarks:
Check if empty object is empty
undefined vs. typeof vs. in vs. hasOwnProperty 30
undefined vs hasOwnProperty
zzHasOwn1
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?