Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Compare Performance Code Complexity Without Original
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Using Go Bottom Up vs Using Memoization
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var n = 8;
Tests:
Using Go Bottom Up
function getNthNumber() { let prev = 0; let afterPrev = 1; let current = 1; for(let i = 1; i <= n; i++) { current = prev + afterPrev afterPrev = prev prev = current } return current } getNthNumber()
Using Memoization
function getNthNumber() { const memoize = []; const cb = (n) => { if(n <= 2 ) return 1; if(memoize[n]) return memoize[n]; memoize[n] = cb(n - 1) + cb(n - 2); return memoize[n]; } return cb(n) } getNthNumber()
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Using Go Bottom Up
Using Memoization
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):
**Overview** MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents two benchmark test cases, each testing different approaches for calculating the nth Fibonacci number. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition consists of three parts: 1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code initializes the variable `n` with the value 8. 2. **Html Preparation Code**: This field is empty, indicating that no HTML preparation code is required. 3. **Description**: This field is also empty, suggesting that there is no description or context for the benchmark. **Options Compared** The two test cases compare the performance of two approaches: 1. **Using Go Bottom Up**: This approach uses a bottom-up dynamic programming technique to calculate the nth Fibonacci number. The function `getNthNumber` initializes three variables (`prev`, `afterPrev`, and `current`) and then iterates from 1 to `n` to calculate the value of `current`. 2. **Using Memoization**: This approach uses memoization, a technique where previously calculated values are stored in an array (`memoize`) to avoid redundant calculations. The function `getNthNumber` defines a recursive function `cb` that calculates the nth Fibonacci number by recursively calling itself with decreasing values of `n`. **Pros and Cons** * **Using Go Bottom Up**: This approach is likely to be slower than memoization due to the overhead of iterative calculation and variable assignments. However, it can be beneficial for smaller inputs or when memory is limited. * **Using Memoization**: This approach is generally faster since it avoids redundant calculations by storing previously computed values. However, it requires more memory to store the `memoize` array. **Library and Special JS Features** Neither of the test cases uses any external libraries or special JavaScript features beyond the standard syntax and built-in functions (e.g., `for`, `let`, `const`, etc.). **Other Alternatives** Some alternative approaches for calculating Fibonacci numbers include: * **Iterative Approach**: An iterative approach without memoization can be faster than the Go Bottom Up method but slower than memoization. * **Recursive Approach with Memoization**: This approach combines recursive calculation with memoization to reduce redundant calculations, potentially offering a balance between performance and memory usage. Keep in mind that these alternatives are not explicitly tested on MeasureThat.net.
Related benchmarks:
Which equals operator (== vs ===) is faster?
Which cmp operator (== vs === vs >) is faster?
Which equals operator (== vs === vs != vs !== ) is faster?
Which equals operator (== vs ===) is faster? 2
JS BigInt big number performance v12
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?