Benchmark: Math.sign speed - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var x = -200000
var abs = Math.sign

Tests:

Math.abs access
Math.sign(x)
abs function
sign(x)
compare
x < 0 ? -1 : x > 0 ? 1 : 0

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.abs access
abs function
compare

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 132 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.abs access	153945616.0 Ops/sec
abs function	0.0 Ops/sec
compare	111615520.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark definition is a JSON object that provides metadata about the benchmark. In this case:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which is "Math.sign speed".
* `Description`: An empty description, likely indicating no specific description for this benchmark.
* `Script Preparation Code`: A script that prepares the environment before running the benchmark. This script defines two variables: `x` and `abs`, where `x` is set to -200000 and `abs` is assigned the value of `Math.sign`.
* `Html Preparation Code`: An empty HTML preparation code, likely indicating no specific HTML setup required for this benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**
The test cases are defined in an array. There are three test cases:

1. `"Math.abs access"`: This test case compares the execution time of accessing `abs` with and without assigning it a value.
2. `"abs function"`: This test case measures the execution time of the pure function `sign(x)`.
3. `"compare"`: This test case tests the execution speed of a conditional expression that uses the `sign` function.

**What's being tested**
The benchmark is testing the performance of different approaches to access and use the `Math.sign` function. The test cases cover various scenarios:

* Accessing `abs` with and without assigning it a value
* Measuring the execution time of pure functions like `sign(x)`
* Testing conditional expressions that rely on `sign(x)`

**Options being compared**
The options being compared are different ways to access or use the `Math.sign` function. Here's a brief description of each:

1. **Accessing `abs` with and without assignment**: The first test case compares accessing `abs` through its alias (assigned to `x`) versus accessing it directly from `Math`. This tests how the JavaScript engine optimizes lookups and assignments.
2. **Pure function `sign(x)`**: The second test case measures the execution time of calling `sign(x)`, which is a pure function that takes one argument and returns its sign (1 for positive, 0 for zero, -1 for negative).
3. **Conditional expression using `sign(x)`**: The third test case tests the performance of a conditional expression that uses `sign(x)`. This test case simulates how the engine might be called in real-world scenarios.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Accessing `abs` with and without assignment**:
	+ Pros: Provides insight into optimization strategies, such as caching or memoization.
	+ Cons: May not accurately represent real-world usage patterns.
* **Pure function `sign(x)`**:
	+ Pros: Offers a straightforward test of pure function execution time.
	+ Cons: Might be too simplistic, as it doesn't account for other operations that might be performed concurrently with the pure function call.
* **Conditional expression using `sign(x)`**:
	+ Pros: Simulates real-world usage patterns and helps identify performance issues in complex conditional statements.
	+ Cons: May have a higher overhead due to the complexity of the test case.

**Library and syntax considerations**
The benchmark uses the JavaScript built-in function `Math.sign`. There are no special libraries or syntax features used beyond what's inherent to the language.

**Other alternatives**
If you wanted to run this benchmark with different languages or frameworks, you could consider:

* Using a static analysis tool like `eslint` or `jslint` to compare optimization strategies for pure functions.
* Implementing alternative mathematical functions (e.g., using a custom implementation of `sign(x)`) to test the engine's performance under different scenarios.

Keep in mind that the results would likely be language-dependent, as each language has its own optimization strategies and features.

Related benchmarks:

Math.sign speed (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.abs access vs abs function vs compare

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.abs access

abs function

compare

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):