Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Random perf
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Small diff vs Large diff
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Tests:
Small diff
_.random(99999, 999999);
Large diff
_.random(99999, Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Small diff
Large diff
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 the benchmark and its components. **What is tested on the provided JSON?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case. The test case consists of two individual test cases, each with a unique "Benchmark Definition" string that defines the operation being measured. In this case, the operations are: 1. `_.random(99999, 999999);` (Small diff) 2. `_.random(99999, Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER);` (Large diff) The test cases use the Lodash library, which is a popular utility library for JavaScript. The `_.random()` function generates a random number within a specified range. **Options compared** The two test cases compare different options: 1. Small diff: A relatively small random number range (99999 to 999999). 2. Large diff: A very large random number range (99999 to the maximum safe integer value). These comparisons aim to measure the performance of the Lodash `_.random()` function under different conditions. **Pros and Cons of those approaches** 1. Small diff: * Pros: It's a relatively small and manageable range, making it easier to analyze results. * Cons: The difference between the two options might be too small to detect meaningful performance differences. 2. Large diff: * Pros: It tests the function's ability to handle large ranges, which is more representative of real-world usage. * Cons: The large range might lead to slower execution times due to increased overhead. **Other considerations** 1. Warm-up and garbage collection: The test cases do not account for warm-up periods or garbage collection, which can affect performance in real-world scenarios. 2. Environment variability: The benchmark results are specific to a single device (Mac OS X 10.15.7) and browser (Chrome 110). Results may vary on other devices or browsers. **Library description** The Lodash library is a utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string processing, and more. In this case, the `_.random()` function generates a random number within a specified range. **Special JS feature or syntax (not applicable)** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code is standard JavaScript. **Alternatives** Alternative benchmarks for comparing performance could include: 1. Basic arithmetic operations (e.g., addition, multiplication) 2. Array manipulation functions (e.g., `array.indexOf()`, `array.sort()`) 3. String processing functions (e.g., `string.split()`, `string.replace()`) 4. More complex algorithms (e.g., sorting large datasets) These alternative benchmarks would allow for a more comprehensive understanding of performance characteristics in different JavaScript scenarios.
Related benchmarks:
_.sortBy vs _.orderBy vs JS sort
Unique lodash vs vanilla
Lodash.ceil vs Math.ceil
lodash vs radash 3
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?