Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
BigInt boolean operations
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
BigInt vs number
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
BigInt
let c = 1234n; for (let a = 1000; a < 10000; ++a) { for (let b = 1000; b < 10000; ++b) { c = c ^ (c - 1n); } }
number
let c = 1234; for (let a = 1000; a < 10000; ++a) { for (let b = 1000; b < 10000; ++b) { c = c ^ (c - 1); } }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
BigInt
number
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'd be happy to help explain the provided benchmark. **What is being tested?** The provided benchmark tests two different approaches to perform bitwise XOR operations on large integers. The first approach uses JavaScript's built-in `BigInt` data type, while the second approach does not use `BigInt`. **Options compared:** There are two main options being compared: 1. **JavaScript's `BigInt`**: This option uses the `BigInt` data type, which is a relatively new addition to JavaScript that allows for arbitrary-precision arithmetic. 2. **Non-`BigInt` arithmetic**: This option performs the bitwise XOR operation on large integers using regular JavaScript numbers (i.e., without using `BigInt`). This approach is likely to be less efficient and more prone to integer overflows. **Pros and cons of each approach:** 1. **JavaScript's `BigInt`**: * Pros: + Efficient arithmetic operations with arbitrary-precision support. + Eliminates the risk of integer overflows. * Cons: + May introduce additional overhead due to the use of a separate data type. 2. **Non-`BigInt` arithmetic**: * Pros: + May be faster for certain use cases, as it avoids the overhead of `BigInt`. * Cons: + Prone to integer overflows and loss of precision. **Library usage:** There is no library being used in this benchmark. However, if a custom JavaScript implementation were needed, libraries like `big-integer` or `bigint.js` could be considered for their `BigInt` support. **Special JS features or syntax:** None are mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. **Other alternatives:** If you want to test other approaches or variations on these options, you could consider adding additional benchmark cases, such as: * Using a specific JavaScript engine or runtime (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey) * Compiling the code to machine code using tools like `es2js` * Adding additional factors that can affect performance, such as caching or parallel execution Keep in mind that each new variation may introduce additional complexity and require more setup, so it's essential to carefully evaluate the trade-offs before adding new cases. **Benchmark preparation code:** The benchmark preparation code is empty, which means that the test runner will need to generate a suitable script for each test case. The provided `Benchmark Definition` json defines two test cases: 1. `BigInt`: Tests the performance of the bitwise XOR operation on large integers using JavaScript's `BigInt`. 2. `number`: Tests the performance of the same operation but without using `BigInt`. The actual benchmark preparation code will depend on the specific requirements and constraints of the test runner. **Benchmark result:** The latest benchmark result shows that Chrome 118, running on a Mac OS X 10.15.7 system, outperforms itself for the `number` test case compared to the `BigInt` test case.
Related benchmarks:
bigint-vs-string
Bit Parity: Fast vs Slow
Bitwise Big array comparision 2
String Big array comparision 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?