Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Speed of power ops
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Math.pow vs es6 ** operator vs const * const
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Math.pow
const c = Math.pow(3.14, 2)
es6 ** operator
const c = 3.14 ** 2
const * const
const c = 3.14 * 3.14
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Math.pow
es6 ** operator
const * const
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested. The benchmark consists of three individual test cases that measure the performance of different mathematical operations in JavaScript. Here's a brief explanation of each operation: 1. `Math.pow(3.14, 2)`: This test case measures the performance of the traditional `pow` method from the `Math` object. 2. `3.14 ** 2`: This test case measures the performance of the exponentiation operator (`**`) introduced in ECMAScript 2016 (ES6). 3. `const c = 3.14 * 3.14`: This test case measures the performance of a simple multiplication operation. Now, let's discuss the options being compared: * **Traditional `pow` method**: The traditional `Math.pow` method is used to calculate powers in JavaScript. It has been around for a long time and is widely supported. * **Exponentiation operator (`**`)**: Introduced in ES6, this operator allows for more concise exponentiation expressions. For example, `3.14 ** 2` is equivalent to `Math.pow(3.14, 2)`. * **Simple multiplication**: This option uses a simple multiplication operation without any additional methods or operators. Pros and cons of each approach: * **Traditional `pow` method**: + Pros: Wide support, well-established. + Cons: May be slower than other options due to its complexity. * **Exponentiation operator (`**`)**: + Pros: More concise, faster execution. + Cons: Introduced in ES6, may not be supported in older browsers or versions of JavaScript. * **Simple multiplication**: + Pros: Fastest execution, no additional overhead. + Cons: Less readable and less maintainable. The benchmark also includes the browser-specific details, such as: * `Browser`: The specific version of Chrome being tested. * `DevicePlatform` and `OperatingSystem`: Information about the device running the test (Desktop in this case). In terms of libraries used, none are explicitly mentioned in the provided code snippet. However, it's worth noting that some benchmarks might use external libraries or frameworks to generate test cases or measure performance. The special JavaScript feature being tested here is the exponentiation operator (`**`) introduced in ES6. This allows for more concise and expressive mathematical expressions. Alternatives to MeasureThat.net: * **Benchmarking frameworks**: There are several benchmarking frameworks available, such as `benchmark.js`, `fast-benchmark`, or `js-perf`. * **Test suites**: Some JavaScript libraries, like Jest or Mocha, provide built-in benchmarking capabilities. * **Manual benchmarking**: Developers can use manual methods to measure the performance of their code, but this may be more time-consuming and less reliable. Keep in mind that the choice of benchmarking tool or framework depends on specific requirements, such as the type of performance measurement needed, the level of accuracy required, and the complexity of the test cases.
Related benchmarks:
Power vs Multiply
Power vs Square Root functions
Multiply vs power operator **
math pow vs multiplysadfasdfkjlkj
Math.pow(2,n) vs Table lookup vs bitwise
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?