Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
mul vs tern
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
tern false vs mul false vs tern true vs mul true
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
this.n = Math.floor(Math.random() * 10000);
Tests:
tern false
let timeInSecond = false; return timeInSecond ? this.n * 1000 : this.n * 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000
mul false
let timeInSecond = false; return this.n * 1000 + ( (!timeInSecond) * this.n * 24 * 60 * 60 * 999 )
tern true
let timeInSecond = true; return timeInSecond ? this.n * 1000 : this.n * 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000
mul true
let timeInSecond = true; return this.n * 1000 + ( (!timeInSecond) * this.n * 24 * 60 * 60 * 999 )
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (4)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
tern false
mul false
tern true
mul true
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 and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach. **What is being tested?** The test cases compare two approaches to perform multiplication: 1. `tern true`: The result is multiplied by 1000 when `timeInSecond` is true. 2. `mul true`: A separate variable `this.n * 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000` is calculated and added to the result of multiplying `this.n` by 1000. The test cases also compare two approaches for when `timeInSecond` is false: 1. `tern false`: The result is multiplied by 1000 when `timeInSecond` is true. 2. `mul false`: A separate variable `this.n * 24 * 60 * 60 * 999` is calculated and added to the result of multiplying `this.n` by 1000. **Options compared** The options being compared are: * Two different multiplication approaches: + `tern true` (multiply by 1000 when `timeInSecond` is true) + `mul true` (calculate a separate variable and add it to the result of multiplying by 1000) * For when `timeInSecond` is false, two different approaches are also compared: + `tern false` + `mul false` **Pros and cons of each approach** Here's a brief analysis of each approach: 1. `tern true`: * Pros: Simple and straightforward. * Cons: May lead to more accurate results due to avoiding unnecessary calculations when `timeInSecond` is false. 2. `mul true`: * Pros: Can avoid the issue of NaN (Not a Number) values that might occur when adding 0 to the result of multiplying by 1000, especially for large numbers. * Cons: Requires an additional variable calculation and may lead to slightly slower performance. 3. `tern false`: * Pros: Similar to `tern true`, but avoids the unnecessary calculation when `timeInSecond` is false. * Cons: May be less accurate due to adding 0 to the result of multiplying by 1000, especially for large numbers. 4. `mul false`: * Pros: Avoids the issue of NaN values and potentially slower performance compared to `tern true`. * Cons: Requires an additional variable calculation and may lead to slightly slower performance. **Library usage** In none of the test cases is a library explicitly mentioned. However, JavaScript's built-in functions, such as `Math.random()` and string manipulation, are used. **Special JS feature or syntax** The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would affect its execution. **Other alternatives** If alternative approaches were to be considered: 1. Using a library like `lodash` or `Mathjs` for more efficient mathematical calculations. 2. Utilizing parallel processing or multi-threading to improve performance on multi-core processors. 3. Implementing just-in-time (JIT) compilation or ahead-of-time (AOT) compilation to optimize the code. Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark and may not be applicable for this specific use case. **Benchmark preparation code** The script preparation code `this.n = Math.floor(Math.random() * 10000)` generates a random number between 0 and 9999, which is used as the multiplier in the test cases. The HTML preparation code is empty, indicating that no additional HTML setup is required for this benchmark. Let me know if you'd like further clarification or details!
Related benchmarks:
Math.floor vs bitwise <<
Array creation with Array.reduce vs for loop vs Array.forEach
Array creation with Array.reduce vs for loop vs Array.forEach(2)
getRandomNumberInRange vs getRandomValueInRange
getRandomNumberInRange vs getRandomValueInRange 5000
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?