Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Function invocation for plain calculations
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Function invocation vs Plain with fallback vs Plain without fallback
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var getDelta = (a, b) => a-b || 0
Tests:
Function invocation
getDelta(3, 2)
Plain with fallback
3-2 || 0
Plain without fallback
3 - 2
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Function invocation
Plain with fallback
Plain without fallback
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):
Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is being tested, compared, and considered in the benchmark. **Benchmark Definition** The JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests various approaches to perform a simple calculation: `getDelta(3, 2)`. This function calculates the difference between two numbers, returning either the actual difference or 0 if one of the inputs is NaN (Not a Number). **Script Preparation Code** ```javascript var getDelta = (a, b) => a-b || 0; ``` This code defines a simple JavaScript function `getDelta` that takes two arguments `a` and `b`. The function returns the difference between `a` and `b`, using the OR operator (`||`) to provide a fallback value of 0 if either `a` or `b` is NaN. **Html Preparation Code** There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that this benchmark only tests the JavaScript execution performance without considering any HTML-related overhead. **Test Cases** The benchmark consists of three test cases: 1. **Function invocation**: Tests calling the `getDelta` function directly. ```javascript getDelta(3, 2) ``` 2. **Plain with fallback**: Tests using the OR operator (`||`) to provide a fallback value for NaN inputs. ```javascript 3-2 || 0 ``` 3. **Plain without fallback**: Tests omitting the OR operator and relying on the JavaScript interpreter to handle NaN values correctly. ```javascript 3 - 2 ``` **Comparison** The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches: * Function invocation: calls the `getDelta` function directly, which incurs overhead due to function lookup and execution. * Plain with fallback: uses the OR operator (`||`) to provide a simple fallback value, reducing the overhead compared to direct function calls. * Plain without fallback: relies on the JavaScript interpreter to handle NaN values correctly, potentially resulting in more optimal bytecode generation. **Pros and Cons** * **Function invocation**: Pros: allows for fine-grained control over calculation logic. Cons: incurs higher overhead due to function lookup and execution. * **Plain with fallback**: Pros: reduces overhead by using a simple OR operator to provide a fallback value. Cons: may not be suitable for all use cases where NaN handling is critical. * **Plain without fallback**: Pros: leverages JavaScript's built-in NaN handling, potentially resulting in more optimal bytecode generation. Cons: requires careful consideration of edge cases and NaN propagation. **Library** There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, the `getDelta` function uses a simple arithmetic expression with OR operator (`||`) to handle NaN values. **Special JS feature/syntax** None are explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for testing JavaScript performance benchmarks include: * Using a different mathematical library (e.g., Math.js) that provides optimized implementations of arithmetic operations. * Incorporating other input types, such as large numbers or complex expressions, to test the benchmark's handling of those cases. * Adding more test cases to cover edge cases, such as NaN propagation, integer overflows, or precision issues. Keep in mind that this is a simplified example, and real-world benchmarks may require additional considerations, such as: * Input validation and sanitization * Error handling and propagation * Browser-specific quirks and optimizations
Related benchmarks:
Truncating a number to an integer
Number Conversion Speed 2
Math.imul vs. polyfills 2
Comparing different techniques to truncate float-point numbers in JavaScript
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() vs bitwise, also trunc, floor
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?