Benchmark: Edge wrapping - ternary vs magic constant

Script Preparation code:

var wrap_ternary = function(x) {
  return x < 0 ? x + 1 : x > 1 ? x - 1 : x;
}
var wrap_magic = function(x) {
  return x - Math.floor(x * 0.99999994);
}

const floor = Math.floor;
var wrap_magic_scope = function(x) {
  return x - floor(x * 0.99999994);
}

Tests:

Ternary
wrap_ternary(-1.00); wrap_ternary(-0.75); wrap_ternary(-0.50); wrap_ternary(-0.25); wrap_ternary( 0.00); wrap_ternary( 0.25); wrap_ternary( 0.50); wrap_ternary( 0.75); wrap_ternary( 1.00); wrap_ternary( 1.25); wrap_ternary( 1.50); wrap_ternary( 1.75); wrap_ternary( 2.00);
Magic
wrap_magic(-1.00); wrap_magic(-0.75); wrap_magic(-0.50); wrap_magic(-0.25); wrap_magic( 0.00); wrap_magic( 0.25); wrap_magic( 0.50); wrap_magic( 0.75); wrap_magic( 1.00); wrap_magic( 1.25); wrap_magic( 1.50); wrap_magic( 1.75); wrap_magic( 2.00);
Magic Scoped
wrap_magic_scope(-1.00); wrap_magic_scope(-0.75); wrap_magic_scope(-0.50); wrap_magic_scope(-0.25); wrap_magic_scope( 0.00); wrap_magic_scope( 0.25); wrap_magic_scope( 0.50); wrap_magic_scope( 0.75); wrap_magic_scope( 1.00); wrap_magic_scope( 1.25); wrap_magic_scope( 1.50); wrap_magic_scope( 1.75); wrap_magic_scope( 2.00);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Ternary
Magic
Magic Scoped

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of JavaScript functions that implement edge wrapping, which is used to limit a value to a specific range. There are three variants:

1. **Ternary**: The function uses a ternary operator (`?:`) to check if the input `x` is less than 0, greater than 1, or within the desired range (0 to 1). If `x` is outside this range, it adds/subtracts 1 from/to `x`.
2. **Magic**: The function uses a magic constant (0.99999994) to check if `x` is less than or greater than 0.99999994. This value is chosen such that `x` will be rounded down when multiplied by this constant and then subtracted from the original value.
3. **Magic Scoped**: This function is similar to the "Magic" variant, but its scope includes a reference to the `Math.floor()` function, which is used to round down the input `x`.

**Options Compared**

The three test cases compare the performance of these three edge wrapping variants:

* Ternary vs Magic: The performance difference between using a ternary operator and a magic constant.
* Magic vs Magic Scoped: The impact of including the `Math.floor()` function on the performance of the "Magic" variant.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

1. **Ternary**:
	* Pros: Simple to implement, easy to read.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of evaluating a ternary operator.
2. **Magic**:
	* Pros: Often used in real-world code, as it provides a reasonable approximation for rounding down values.
	* Cons: May not be as readable or maintainable as other approaches, and its performance may vary depending on the specific use case.
3. **Magic Scoped**:
	* Pros: Includes a reference to `Math.floor()`, which can provide better accuracy for certain use cases.
	* Cons: May add unnecessary complexity to the code, and its performance may be slightly slower than the "Magic" variant.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses the following library:

* `Math`: The JavaScript math library provides various mathematical functions, including `floor()`, which is used in the "Magic Scoped" variant.
* `console.log()`: Not explicitly mentioned in the code, but implied as it's often used for logging results or debugging.

**Special JS Features**

None of the test cases use special JavaScript features or syntax. They are relatively simple and straightforward implementations of edge wrapping functions.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for implementing edge wrapping could include:

* Using bitwise operations (e.g., `x & 0xFF` to get the last byte of a float) instead of arithmetic.
* Implementing a custom rounding function using multiple conditions instead of relying on built-in library functions.
* Using SIMD instructions (if available on the target hardware) to accelerate certain rounding operations.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics and trade-offs, and their suitability depends on the specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Edge wrapping - ternary vs magic constant (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Ternary vs Magic vs Magic Scoped

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Ternary

Magic

Magic Scoped

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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