Benchmark: Math.pow vs ** vs * with side effects

Script Preparation code:

var sum = 0;

Tests:

pow
sum = (sum + Math.pow(6, 42)) % 123456789;
**
sum = (sum + 6 ** 42) % 123456789;
*
sum = (sum + 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 *6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6) % 123456789;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pow
**
*

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case that compares three different ways to calculate the power of 6 (6^42) in JavaScript: `Math.pow`, `**` (the exponentiation operator), and `*` with repeated multiplication. The test also introduces side effects by incrementing a variable (`sum`) on each iteration.

**Options compared**

There are three options being compared:

1. **`Math.pow`**: This is the built-in JavaScript function for calculating the power of a number.
2. **`**`: This is the exponentiation operator, which was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).
3. **`*` with repeated multiplication**: This approach involves multiplying the base number (`6`) by itself a large number of times to calculate the power.

**Pros and cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

1. **`Math.pow`**:
	* Pros: Portable, efficient, and well-tested.
	* Cons: May be subject to compiler optimizations that eliminate its use.
2. **`**`:**
	* Pros: Modern, concise, and often faster than `Math.pow`.
	* Cons: May not work as expected in older JavaScript environments or with certain browser implementations.
3. **`*` with repeated multiplication**: 
	* Pros: Can be faster for very large exponents due to caching and loop optimization.
	* Cons: Inefficient for smaller exponents, may lead to stack overflows, and can be difficult to optimize.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines or libraries might provide additional features or optimizations for exponentiation operations, such as `BigInt` support in modern browsers.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The `**` operator is a special feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), which allows for concise and expressive exponentiation. This operator is not supported in older JavaScript environments.

**Benchmark preparation code and HTML Preparation Code**

The provided JSON contains the script preparation code (`var sum = 0;`) and no HTML preparation code (`null`). The `sum` variable is incremented on each iteration to introduce side effects and prevent optimizations that might eliminate its use.

**Other alternatives**

There are other alternatives for exponentiation in JavaScript, such as:

1. **`Math.exp(2 * Math.log(6))`**: This approach uses the property of logarithms that states `a^b = e^(b \* ln(a))`.
2. **`Number.prototype.pow()`**: Some libraries or engines might provide a custom exponentiation method using prototype methods.

However, these alternatives are not part of the standard JavaScript library and may have different performance characteristics compared to the built-in operators (`Math.pow`, `**`) and repeated multiplication (`*`).

Related benchmarks:

Math.pow vs ** vs * with side effects (version: 0)

Add side effects to prevent optimizing away the code.

Comparing performance of: pow vs ** vs *

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

pow

**

*

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):