Benchmark: hypotvssqrtpower

Script Preparation code:

var x = 100;
var y = 100;

Tests:

hypot
eval(""); var r = Math.hypot(x, y);
sqrtpower
eval(""); var r = Math.sqrt(x ** 2 + y ** 2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
hypot
sqrtpower

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
hypot	3395230.8 Ops/sec
sqrtpower	3294583.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

**What is tested?**

The benchmark tests two mathematical functions: `Math.hypot` and `Math.sqrt`. Specifically, it measures the performance of these functions when called with two input arguments (`x` and `y`) that are set to a constant value (100).

In other words, the benchmark is checking how fast JavaScript can evaluate these mathematical expressions using these specific functions.

**Options compared**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **Math.hypot**: This function calculates the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle given the lengths of its two legs (`x` and `y`). It's implemented in C++ by WebKit and is relatively efficient.
2. **Math.sqrt + Math.pow**: This approach involves calculating the square root of the sum of squares of `x` and `y` using the `Math.sqrt` function, which is a built-in JavaScript function, followed by squaring `y` using the exponentiation operator (`**`). The results are then added together before being passed to `Math.sqrt`.

**Pros and cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

* **Math.hypot**: Pros:
	+ Implemented in C++, making it potentially faster than JavaScript code.
	+ Simplified calculation, as only one square root needs to be calculated.
* Cons:
	+ Limited flexibility, as the input arguments are hardcoded.
	+ May not be representative of real-world usage scenarios, where `x` and `y` might have different values.
* **Math.sqrt + Math.pow**: Pros:
	+ More flexible, as it allows for arbitrary values of `x` and `y`.
	+ Can potentially outperform `Math.hypot` if the calculated square root is faster than `Math.hypot` due to its implementation details (although this is unlikely).
* Cons:
	+ Requires two calculations: one square root and one exponentiation.
	+ May have higher overhead due to function calls and arithmetic operations.

**Library usage**

In both test cases, a library is used:

1. **eval**: This built-in JavaScript function evaluates a string as JavaScript code. In the first test case, it's used to execute `Math.hypot(x, y)` where `x` and `y` are variables set by the script preparation code.
2. **None**: There is no library or external module used in either test case.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax explicitly mentioned in these benchmarks. However, it's worth noting that some older versions of JavaScript had specific issues with exponentiation operators (`**`) due to their implementation as a binary operation on floating-point numbers. This might have been the case for earlier browsers or engines.

In summary, this benchmark is designed to compare the performance of `Math.hypot` versus a simpler approach using `Math.sqrt + Math.pow`, highlighting the efficiency and simplicity of the C++-implemented `Math.hypot`.

Related benchmarks:

hypotvssqrtpower (version: 0)

argiuaegioaergjioaerjgioaejgioaerjg

Comparing performance of: hypot vs sqrtpower

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

hypot

sqrtpower

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):