Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
clamp with min max vs ternary
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
min max vs ternary
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
min max
Math.min(Math.max(150, 10), 100);
ternary
10 < 100 ? 100 : (10 > 150 ? 150 : 10)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
min max
ternary
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 123 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=516656" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
ternary
100.4M/s
min max
4.1M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
ternary
100,421,944 Ops/sec
min max
4,054,786 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down what is being tested in the provided benchmark. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is comparing two approaches to clamp a value between a minimum and maximum: `Math.min(Math.max(150, 10), 100)` and `10 < 100 ? 100 : (10 > 150 ? 150 : 10)`. Both expressions aim to achieve the same result: return the smaller of the two values. **Options being compared** There are two main approaches: 1. **Ternary Operator**: `10 < 100 ? 100 : (10 > 150 ? 150 : 10)` * Pros: + More concise and readable. + No need to create a separate function for the minimum value. * Cons: + Less intuitive, as it uses a ternary operator. 2. **Math.min() + Math.max()**: `Math.min(Math.max(150, 10), 100)` * Pros: + More explicit and easy to understand. * Cons: + Requires two separate function calls. **Pros and Cons** The choice between these approaches depends on the specific use case. If readability is a top priority, the ternary operator might be preferred. However, if explicitness and simplicity are more important, the `Math.min()` + `Math.max()` approach could be a better fit. It's worth noting that both expressions have a time complexity of O(1), making them efficient for this specific use case. **Library usage** In the benchmark definition, there is no library explicitly used. However, some browsers (like Chrome 123) might use their own internal libraries or optimizations that could affect the results. The benchmark result only shows the raw execution times, without providing any information about potential library-related factors. **Special JavaScript feature/syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. Both expressions are standard and widely supported. **Other alternatives** Some other ways to achieve the same result might include: 1. Using a separate function for the minimum value: `function clamp(x, min, max) { return Math.min(Math.max(x, min), max); }` 2. Using arrow functions or regular functions: `clamp = x => Math.min(Math.max(x, 10), 100)` 3. Using bitwise operations (although not directly applicable to this specific use case) Keep in mind that these alternatives might have varying levels of readability and maintainability compared to the original expressions. **Benchmark preparation code** The provided "Script Preparation Code" and "Html Preparation Code" fields are empty, which means the benchmark doesn't require any special setup or configuration beyond what's already present in the HTML page.
Related benchmarks
Clamping via min-max or ternary operator
Clamp Integers by various methods
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?