Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
multiply vs function call
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
pow vs mult
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
pow
var n = 124214.24; var x = n * n;
mult
var n = 124214.24; function square(x) { return x * x; } var x = square(n);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
pow
mult
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 what's being tested in the provided JSON. Measuring that.net is a tool for creating and running JavaScript microbenchmarks, which are small tests designed to measure the performance of specific parts of code. The benchmark definition JSON represents two different test cases: "pow" and "mult". **What's being compared?** The main difference between these two test cases is how multiplication is performed: 1. **Direct Multiplication**: In the "pow" test case, direct multiplication is used: `var n = 124214.24; var x = n * n;`. This method uses the native JavaScript operator `*` to perform multiplication. 2. **Function Call**: In the "mult" test case, a custom function named `square(x)` is defined to perform multiplication: `function square(x) { return x * x; } var x = square(n);`. This approach involves creating an additional function call. **Pros and Cons** **Direct Multiplication (pow)** Pros: * Native JavaScript optimization: The native `*` operator is optimized by the browser engine for better performance. * Fewer function calls: Direct multiplication eliminates the overhead of a function call. Cons: * Less control over optimization: The browser engine may optimize this method differently than the custom function call. **Custom Function Call (mult)** Pros: * More control over optimization: By creating an additional function, developers can better understand how their code is being optimized. * Explicitness: This approach makes it clear that multiplication is being performed explicitly. Cons: * Additional overhead: Creating a function call adds unnecessary overhead due to the JavaScript engine's parsing and interpretation of the function definition, as well as potential function lookup costs in older browsers. **Other Considerations** When benchmarking, it's essential to consider factors such as: * Function call overhead vs. native operator performance * Memory allocation and deallocation during multiplication (e.g., if `n` is a large number) * Browser-specific optimizations for certain arithmetic operations In the case of these test cases, the primary focus is on comparing direct multiplication with a custom function call. **Library/Function Used** No libraries or functions are used beyond the native JavaScript `*` operator and the custom `square(x)` function defined in the "mult" test case. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There's no explicit mention of special JavaScript features or syntax being used in these test cases. However, some browsers may optimize certain arithmetic operations (like multiplication) using techniques like SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) instructions, which are not explicitly shown here. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for benchmarking JavaScript performance include: * V8 Benchmark Suite: A set of benchmarks designed to measure the performance of various JavaScript engines. * jsPerf: An online tool for creating and running JavaScript benchmarks. * Bench.js: A lightweight JavaScript benchmarking library. Keep in mind that each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of benchmarking tool or method depends on specific use cases and goals.
Related benchmarks:
math pow vs multiply vs multiply2
multiplication vs exponentiation
eval vs math operator
math.pow vs multiply vs exponentiation
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?