Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Test long calcul
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
0.126 vs 1 vs 4
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
0.126
const val = 0.126; let total = 0; const repeat = 20000000; for(let i=0; i < repeat; i++) { total += val; }
1
const val = 1; let total = 0; const repeat = 20000000; for(let i=0; i < repeat; i++) { total += val; };
4
const val = 4; let total = 0; const repeat = 20000000; for(let i=0; i < repeat; i++) { total += val; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
0.126
1
4
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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks! **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents three individual test cases, each with a simple script that calculates the sum of a constant value (`val`) repeated `repeat` times. The tests are designed to measure the performance of different values for `val`. The scripts only contain basic arithmetic operations: addition and multiplication. **Options compared** In this benchmark, two options are being compared: 1. **Constant values**: The test cases use three different constant values: 0.126, 1, and 4. 2. **No optimization or caching**: The tests do not apply any optimizations or caching mechanisms to the calculation, which means that each iteration of the loop will perform a full calculation from scratch. **Pros and cons** The pros of this approach are: * Simple and easy to understand * Allows for straightforward comparison between different constant values * Does not introduce any additional complexity or overhead However, there are also some potential drawbacks: * The tests may be sensitive to the specific JavaScript engine or implementation being used * The use of simple arithmetic operations may not accurately reflect real-world performance scenarios * The lack of optimizations or caching mechanisms means that each iteration will perform a full calculation, which could lead to slower results **Library usage** There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's possible that some JavaScript engines or implementations might use underlying libraries for optimization or other purposes. **Special JS feature or syntax** The benchmark does not explicitly mention any special JavaScript features or syntax. The scripts are straightforward and do not rely on any advanced techniques like closures, async/await, or decorators. **Other alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to microbenchmarking JavaScript performance, here are a few options: 1. **Using a more complex calculation**: Introduce additional complexity to the calculation by using more advanced mathematical operations, such as trigonometric functions, polynomial equations, or recursive functions. 2. **Applying optimizations or caching**: Modify the script to apply optimizations or caching mechanisms, such as memoization, inlining, or loop unrolling, to see how these impact performance. 3. **Using a different type of input data**: Instead of using constant values, use dynamic input data, such as random numbers, arrays, or objects, to test the performance of different algorithms. 4. **Comparing multiple browsers and engines**: Create a benchmark that compares the performance of different JavaScript engines or browsers, such as Node.js, Chrome, Firefox, or Safari. Keep in mind that microbenchmarking is an art, and there's no one-size-fits-all approach. The choice of options depends on your specific use case, goals, and requirements.
Related benchmarks:
trig funcs vs trigids
fast sin cos vs math sin cos
Trig functions plusplus
Math.hypot vs Math.sqrt
Leetcode Pow vs Math.pow syntax
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?