Benchmark: JavaScript: clamp() variants

Tests:

With inline statements
function clamp(n) { n < 0 && (n = 0); n > 100 && (n = 100); return n; } const n = clamp(150);
With min() and max()
function clamp(n) { return Math.min(Math.max(n, 0), 100); } const n = clamp(150);
With if statements
function clamp(n) { if (n < 0) n = 0; if (n > 100) n = 100; return n; } const n = clamp(150);
With ternary operator #1
function clamp(n) { n < 0 ? n = 0 : n; n > 100 ? n = 100 : n; return n; } const n = clamp(150);
With ternary operator #2
function clamp(n) { return n = n > 100 ? 100 : n < 0 ? 0 : n; } const n = clamp(150);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
With inline statements
With min() and max()
With if statements
With ternary operator #1
With ternary operator #2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 27 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/146.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 146 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
With inline statements	245488112.0 Ops/sec
With min() and max()	259584048.0 Ops/sec
With if statements	261649552.0 Ops/sec
With ternary operator #1	263057472.0 Ops/sec
With ternary operator #2	251894992.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and benchmark results to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON defines a benchmark with a name, description, script preparation code, and HTML preparation code. However, in this case, all fields are empty.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of four test cases, each representing a different implementation of the `clamp()` function:

1. **With inline statements**: This implementation uses inline conditional statements (`t < 0 && (n = 0);` and `t > 100 && (n = 100);`) to clamp the input value.
2. **With min() and max()**: This implementation uses built-in JavaScript functions (`Math.min()` and `Math.max()`) to clamp the input value.
3. **With if statements**: This implementation uses traditional `if` statements (`if (n < 0) n = 0;` and `if (n > 100) n = 100;`) to clamp the input value.
4. **With ternary operator #1** and **#2**: These two implementations use ternary operators (`t < 0 ? n = 0 : n;` and `t > 100 ? n = 100 : n;`) to clamp the input value.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses JavaScript's built-in functions, such as `Math.min()` and `Math.max()`, which are part of the ECMAScript standard. These functions are widely supported across different browsers and platforms.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None mentioned in this specific benchmark.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of four different implementations of the `clamp()` function:

* Inline conditional statements
* Using built-in `Math.min()` and `Math.max()`
* Traditional `if` statements
* Ternary operator #1
* Ternary operator #2

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

* **Inline conditional statements**: This approach is simple, but it can lead to slower execution times due to the overhead of evaluating multiple conditions. Additionally, if the condition is complex, it may make the code harder to read.
* **Using built-in `Math.min()` and `Math.max()`**: These functions are optimized for performance and are widely supported. However, they may not be suitable for all use cases (e.g., older browsers that don't support them).
* **Traditional `if` statements**: This approach is straightforward, but it can be slower than the other methods due to the overhead of evaluating multiple conditions.
* **Ternary operator #1** and **#2**: These operators are concise and easy to read, making them a good choice for simple clamp functions. However, they may not be suitable for more complex conditions.

**Other Considerations**

When benchmarking such small functions, it's essential to consider the following factors:

* Cache efficiency: Different implementations may have varying cache performance, affecting execution times.
* Branch prediction: Some browsers may predict the branch direction (e.g., whether `n` will be less than 0) and adjust their execution accordingly.
* Loop unrolling and caching: The benchmark can benefit from loop unrolling and caching if it's executed frequently.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider:

* Using a different programming language or framework (e.g., Rust, C++, or .NET).
* Implementing the `clamp()` function using assembly code or machine code.
* Comparing performance with other algorithms or data structures that provide similar functionality.

Keep in mind that these alternatives are likely to be outside the scope of MeasureThat.net's benchmarking capabilities.

Related benchmarks:

JavaScript: clamp() variants (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: With inline statements vs With min() and max() vs With if statements vs With ternary operator #1 vs With ternary operator #2

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

With inline statements

With min() and max()

With if statements

With ternary operator #1

With ternary operator #2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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