Benchmark: Testing aux var usage

Tests:

Without aux
var cnpj = "12345678901234"; var length = 12; var sum = 0; var digit = 0; var aux = 5; for (var i = 0; i < length; i++) { sum += cnpj.charAt(i) * aux--; if (aux < 2) { aux = 9; } } digit = sum % 11 < 2 ? 0 : 11 - sum % 11;
With aux
var cnpj = "12345678901234"; var length = 12; var sum = 0; var digit = 0; var aux = 5; for (var i = 0; i < length; i++) { sum += cnpj.charAt(i) * aux--; if (aux < 2) { aux = 9; } } aux = sum % 11; digit = aux < 2 ? 0 : 11 - aux;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Without aux
With aux

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested in the benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to test the performance of different approaches when calculating the last digit of a Brazilian corporate tax identification number (CNPJ). The CNPJ calculation involves multiplying each digit by an auxiliary value (`aux`) that decreases by 1 for each iteration, and then taking the result modulo 11.

**Options being compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Without aux**: In this approach, the auxiliary value is not updated inside the loop. Instead, it's only initialized once before the loop starts.
2. **With aux**: In this approach, the auxiliary value is updated inside the loop, causing its value to decrease by 1 for each iteration.

**Pros and Cons**

* Without aux:
	+ Pros: Simplified code, fewer operations, potentially better cache locality
	+ Cons: May lead to slower performance due to the lack of optimization opportunity
* With aux:
	+ Pros: Optimizes the calculation by reducing the number of multiplications required, potentially leading to faster performance
	+ Cons: Adds an additional operation inside the loop, which may increase the computational overhead

**Library and Purpose**

There is no specific library mentioned in the provided JSON data. However, it's likely that the benchmark is using a JavaScript engine or interpreter that provides some level of optimization for arithmetic operations.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The code uses standard JavaScript constructs such as loops, conditional statements, and arithmetic operations.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark, you might consider alternative approaches, such as:

* Using a lookup table for the auxiliary values (instead of calculating them on the fly)
* Optimizing the calculation using bitwise operations or other low-level techniques
* Using parallel processing or multi-threading to take advantage of multiple CPU cores
* Implementing a more efficient algorithm for calculating the last digit of a CNPJ

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark code and might not always lead to better performance. The choice of approach ultimately depends on the specific requirements and constraints of the project.

As for the provided results, it appears that the "With aux" approach outperforms the "Without aux" approach, with an execution rate of approximately 995,490 seconds^-1 compared to 134,514,114 seconds^-1. However, this result might be influenced by various factors, such as the specific JavaScript engine or interpreter used, the hardware platform, and any optimizations applied during benchmarking.

Related benchmarks:

Testing aux var usage (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Without aux vs With aux

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Without aux

With aux

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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