Benchmark: Clamping via min-max or ternary operator

Script Preparation code:

var minmax = (x, a, b) => Math.min(Math.max(x, a), b);
var ternary = (x, a, b) => x < a ? a : x > b ? b : x;

Tests:

Min-max
const v = minmax(Math.random(), 0.2, 0.8);
Ternary operator
const v = ternary(Math.random(), 0.2, 0.8);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Min-max
Ternary operator

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:122.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/122.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 122 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Min-max

1087.5M/s

Ternary operator

151.8M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Min-max	1,087,511,296 Ops/sec
Ternary operator	151,810,384 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 benchmark JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing two approaches to clamp values within a specified range:

1. **Min-max**: This approach uses the `Math.min` and `Math.max` functions to find the minimum or maximum value between the input value `x`, and the lower/upper bounds `a` and `b`. The result is the clamped value.
2. **Ternary operator**: This approach uses a ternary expression (also known as a conditional operator) to return different values based on the conditions:
	* If `x` is less than `a`, return `a`.
	* If `x` is greater than `b`, return `b`.
	* Otherwise, return `x`.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Min-max**:
	* Pros: More predictable, easier to understand, and often faster due to the optimized implementation in JavaScript engines.
	* Cons: May not be as concise or readable for some developers.
2. **Ternary operator**:
	* Pros: More concise and can be more readable for some developers, especially those familiar with this syntax.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of evaluating a conditional expression.

In general, the min-max approach is considered faster and more predictable, while the ternary operator approach provides a more compact solution.

**Library**

The benchmark does not use any external libraries, so there are no library-specific considerations.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The benchmark uses a special JavaScript feature: the arrow function syntax (`=>`), which was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). The `minmax` and `ternary` functions are defined using this syntax, making them concise and readable.

**Other alternatives**

For clamping values within a range, other approaches might include:

1. Using the `Math.floor` and `Math.ceil` functions in combination.
2. Implementing a custom clamping function using bitwise operations (e.g., shifting and masking).
3. Using a library like Lodash or Ramda to provide a clamping function.

However, these alternatives are not being tested in this benchmark, as the min-max and ternary operator approaches are the focus.

Overall, the benchmark is testing the performance of two concise yet different approaches to clamping values within a range, with the min-max approach likely providing better performance due to its optimized implementation.

Clamping via min-max or ternary operator (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Min-max vs Ternary operator`

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Min-max

Ternary operator

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Clamping via min-max or ternary operator (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Min-max vs Ternary operator

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Min-max

Ternary operator

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Min-max vs Ternary operator`