Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Math.min vs ternary
(version: 0)
native Math.min versus ternary operator
Comparing performance of:
Math.min vs ternary
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
a = 1; b = 2;
Tests:
Math.min
Math.min(a, b)
ternary
a < b ? a : b
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Math.min
ternary
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one month ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/149.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 149 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=632838" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
ternary
197.9M/s
Math.min
197.7M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
ternary
197,930,224 Ops/sec
Math.min
197,659,712 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches to find the minimum value between two numbers: 1. The built-in `Math.min` function in JavaScript. 2. A ternary operator (`a < b ? a : b`) that achieves the same result without using the `Math` library. **Options Compared** The benchmark is comparing two options: * Using the built-in `Math.min` function. * Using a ternary operator to achieve the same result. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** * **Math.min**: This approach uses the built-in JavaScript function to find the minimum value. It's likely to be implemented in native code, which can result in better performance compared to other approaches. However: + Requires access to the `Math` library. + May not be as intuitive or familiar to developers who don't use this library often. * **Ternary Operator**: This approach uses a ternary operator (`a < b ? a : b`) to achieve the same result. It's a concise and easy-to-understand way to express the logic, but: + May require more computational resources or overhead due to the complexity of the expression. + Can be less readable or maintainable for developers who aren't familiar with this syntax. **Library Used** The `Math` library is used in the first approach (`Math.min(a, b)`). The `Math` library provides a set of mathematical functions and constants that are built into JavaScript. Its primary purpose is to provide a standardized way to perform mathematical operations in JavaScript. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It's just a comparison between two approaches using standard JavaScript features. **Other Considerations** When testing performance benchmarks like this, it's essential to consider the following factors: * **Browser and Platform Variability**: Different browsers and platforms can have varying levels of optimization, rendering engines, and system resources, which can affect performance. * **Cache Effects**: Results may be influenced by caching mechanisms, such as browser cache or disk cache. * **Optimization Techniques**: Some browsers or environments might apply optimizations that could skew the results (e.g., inlining, register blocking, etc.). **Alternatives** Other alternatives for this benchmark could include: * Using a different built-in JavaScript function, such as `Math.max` or `Array.prototype.indexOf`. * Implementing a custom algorithm using loops or bitwise operations. * Testing with additional inputs, such as negative numbers, floating-point values, or large integers. Keep in mind that the choice of alternatives depends on the specific goals and requirements of the benchmark.
Related benchmarks
simple Math.max vs ternary
Clamping via min-max or ternary operator
Math.max/min vs if vs ternary operatorsd
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?