Benchmark: clamp with min max vs ternary

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>

Previous results

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

Test name	Executions per second
min max	4054786.0 Ops/sec
ternary	100421944.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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:

clamp with min max vs ternary (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: min max vs ternary

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

min max

ternary

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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