Benchmark: Math.max vs. custom max

Script Preparation code:

let lowerBound = -Number.MAX_VALUE;
function max() {
    let maximum = lowerBound;
    let i = arguments.length;
    while (i--) {
        arguments[i] > maximum && (maximum = arguments[i])
    }
    return maximum;
};

Tests:

Math.max
return Math.max(1,21,53,12,58,65,32,12,445,9382,132,12398,1239812, 21938721, 981, 91283, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 102183129312)
Custom
return max(1,21,53,12,58,65,32,12,445,9382,132,12398,1239812, 21938721, 981, 91283, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 102183129312)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.max
Custom

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 provided JSON to understand what's being tested and compared.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is called "Math.max vs. custom max", which suggests we're comparing two different approaches for finding the maximum value among a set of numbers.

**Script Preparation Code**

This code defines a custom `max` function that takes multiple arguments, iterates over them in reverse order, and returns the maximum value found. The lower bound is initialized to `-Number.MAX_VALUE` (a very large negative number) to ensure any input value will be greater than it.

**Individual Test Cases**

We have two test cases:

1. **Math.max**: This uses the built-in `Math.max` function, which takes multiple arguments and returns the maximum value.
2. **Custom**: This uses the custom `max` function defined in the Script Preparation Code.

**Latest Benchmark Result**

The latest benchmark result shows execution speeds for both `Math.max` and Custom approaches on a Chrome 89 browser running on Windows Desktop.

Now, let's dive into what's being compared:

**Comparison Points**

* **Execution Speed**: The primary comparison point is the number of executions per second (EPS) for each approach. A higher EPS value indicates better performance.
* **Built-in vs. Custom Functionality**: We're comparing a built-in function (`Math.max`) to a custom implementation.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Math.max**:
	+ Pros: Built-in, optimized by browser vendors, likely to be very fast.
	+ Cons: Limited control over implementation details, may not be suitable for all edge cases.
* **Custom max function**:
	+ Pros: More control over implementation details, can handle specific edge cases.
	+ Cons: May not be as fast as built-in implementations, requires manual optimization.

**Other Considerations**

* **Edge Cases**: The custom `max` function might need to handle specific edge cases that the built-in `Math.max` function doesn't cover. In this case, the input values are all positive numbers.
* **Browser Support**: Both approaches should work in most modern browsers, but there might be variations in performance depending on the browser's implementation.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for finding the maximum value include:

* Using a library like Lodash (`.max` function) or Underscore.js (`.max` function)
* Implementing other algorithms, such as using a priority queue
* Using a language-specific feature, if available

Note that these alternatives might not be directly comparable to the provided test cases.

Related benchmarks:

Math.max vs. custom max (version: 0)

N/A

Comparing performance of: Math.max vs Custom

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.max

Custom

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):