Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
gdfgdsfgdfsg
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
321312 vs 342141234
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var value = 123;
Tests:
321312
const fn = (val) => val; fn(value);
342141234
const fn2 = (val) => -val; fn2(value);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
321312
342141234
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):
I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its options. **What is being tested?** The provided benchmark tests the execution time of two simple JavaScript functions: `fn` and `fn2`. The test code defines these functions, which take an input value and perform a constant-time operation on it. In the case of `fn`, the operation is simply returning the input value, while `fn2` returns the negation of the input value. **Options compared** The benchmark compares two options for evaluating the function: 1. **Direct evaluation**: The function is called directly with the input value as an argument. 2. **Closure creation and invocation**: A closure (a function that has access to its own scope) is created, which takes the input value as an argument. This closure is then invoked to perform the operation. **Pros and cons of each approach** * **Direct evaluation**: + Pros: Simple and straightforward. + Cons: May involve additional overhead due to the creation of a new function object or activation record. * **Closure creation and invocation**: + Pros: Can provide better cache locality, as the closure can reuse existing memory allocations. + Cons: May require more code and complexity, especially if the closure needs to capture multiple variables. In general, direct evaluation is often preferred for simple cases like this one, while closure-based approaches might be beneficial in more complex scenarios where performance optimization is critical. **Library usage** None of the provided benchmark definitions use any external libraries or frameworks. The focus is solely on testing the JavaScript engine's ability to execute simple functions. **Special JS feature or syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the provided benchmark definitions. However, it's worth noting that some features like arrow functions (used here) and template literals (not used here) might be affected by specific engine optimizations or behaviors. **Other alternatives** To further test the JavaScript engine, you could consider adding more complex function calls, such as: * Recursive function calls * Function calls with large input values or arrays * Function calls with multiple arguments or object literals Additionally, testing different optimization levels, such as `-O1`, `-O2`, and `-O3` (if available), can provide insights into the engine's performance under various scenarios. By exploring these additional test cases, you can gain a better understanding of how the JavaScript engine optimizes and executes code in different situations.
Related benchmarks:
5464645654745745734634
5464645654745734457345345345465
string to ~~ vs parseInt vs Number vs parseFloat vs +0...
s ds fzzxzx2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?