Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Deci binary partitioning
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Math.max vs For...of
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
const length = 9999; var input = ""; for (let i = 0; i <= length; i +=1) { input += Math.floor(Math.random()*10); }
Tests:
Math.max
(n => Math.max(...n))(input)
For...of
(function(n) { let min = 1; for (digit of n.split('')) { if (digit === 9) { return 9; } if (digit > min) { min = digit; } } return min; })(input)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Math.max
For...of
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'll break down the explanation into smaller sections to make it easier to understand. **Benchmark Definition** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark named "Deci binary partitioning". It defines a benchmark that consists of two test cases: 1. `Math.max` 2. `For...of` The script preparation code generates a random string of length 9999, which is used as input for both test cases. **Options Compared** Two options are compared in this benchmark: 1. **`Math.max`**: This option uses the built-in `Math.max()` function to find the maximum value in the input array. 2. **`For...of`**: This option uses a traditional `for` loop with an iterative approach to find the minimum digit in the input string. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **`Math.max`** * Pros: + Shorter code (only one line) + Faster execution time due to built-in function optimization * Cons: + May not be suitable for very large input arrays, as it can lead to memory issues + Can be less readable than traditional `for` loops 2. **`For...of`** * Pros: + More readable and maintainable code + Suitable for large input arrays without performance issues * Cons: + Longer code (multiple lines) + May not be optimized as well as built-in functions **Library Usage** None of the provided test cases use a JavaScript library. **Special JS Features or Syntax** There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark. The tests only rely on standard JavaScript constructs. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options: 1. **`Array.prototype.reduce()`**: This method can be used to find the maximum value in an array, similar to `Math.max()`. However, it may not be as performant due to the overhead of the reduction function. 2. **`String.prototype.forEach()` and `String.prototype.indexOf()`**: These methods can be used to iterate over the characters in a string and find the minimum digit. However, this approach may not be suitable for very large input strings. Keep in mind that each alternative has its own trade-offs and potential performance implications. I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark better!
Related benchmarks:
String looping test
String looping vs split
Set.has v.s Array.includes
yoooooo
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?