Benchmark: Clamping: Math.mix + Math.max vs if (fixed)

Script Preparation code:

this.number = Math.random() * 1000;

Tests:

Math.min + Math.max
return Math.max(250, Math.min(750, this.number));
if
if(this.number < 250) return 250; if(this.number > 750) return 750; return this.number;
if/else
if(this.number < 250) return 250; else if(this.number > 750) return 750; else return this.number;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.min + Math.max
if
if/else

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/15.6.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 15 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.min + Math.max	7225294.0 Ops/sec
if	258096736.0 Ops/sec
if/else	306957984.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares three different approaches for clamping a value to a specific range:

1. Using `Math.min` and `Math.max` functions in a chained manner (`Math.min + Math.max`)
2. Using an if-else statement with conditional returns (`if`)
3. Using an if-else statement with multiple branches (`if/else`)

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches on a variable value, `this.number`, which is randomly generated between 0 and 1000.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Math.min + Math.max**: This approach is concise and easy to read. It's also a well-established method for clamping values in JavaScript.
	* Pros: Simple, readable, widely supported
	* Cons: May incur a small overhead due to the function call
2. **if/else statement**: This approach provides more control over the value being clamped but requires more code.
	* Pros: More flexible, allows for custom logic
	* Cons: Longer code length, potentially slower due to branching
3. **if/else statement with multiple branches**: This approach is similar to the previous one but adds an additional branch to handle the middle range (250-750).
	* Pros: Provides more control over the value being clamped and handles the middle range explicitly
	* Cons: Even longer code length than the original if-else statement

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses the `Math` library, which is a built-in JavaScript library that provides various mathematical functions, including `min` and `max`.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

While not explicitly mentioned in the benchmark, other alternatives for clamping values could include:

* Using a ternary operator (`? :`)
* Using a switch statement
* Implementing a custom clamp function

However, these alternatives may not be as widely supported or efficient as the approaches compared in the benchmark.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The preparation code generates a random value between 0 and 1000 for `this.number` and assigns it to a property of the test object.

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case provides a specific benchmark definition, which is used to evaluate the performance of each approach. The tests are:

1. `Math.min + Math.max`
2. `if`
3. `if/else`

The latest benchmark results show that the `if/else` statement with multiple branches performs better than the other two approaches on a desktop Chrome 102 browser running on Linux.

I hope this explanation helps software engineers understand the benchmark and its test cases!

Related benchmarks:

Clamping: Math.mix + Math.max vs if (fixed) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.min + Math.max vs if vs if/else

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.min + Math.max

if

if/else

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):