Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
trigetry
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
q vs native
Created:
8 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
function sines(x) { if (x < -3.14159265) x += 6.28318531; else if (x > 3.14159265) x -= 6.28318531; if (x < 0) return 1.27323954 * x + .405284735 * x * x; else return 1.27323954 * x - 0.405284735 * x * x; } function coses(x) { x += 1.57079632; if (x > 3.14159265) x -= 6.28318531; if (x < 0) return 1.27323954 * x + 0.405284735 * x * x else return 1.27323954 * x - 0.405284735 * x * x; }
Tests:
q
sines(10); coses(10);
native
Math.sin(10); Math.cos(10);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
q
native
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
llama3.1:latest
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the explanation. **What is tested on the provided JSON?** The JSON represents a benchmark test case for measuring the performance of two different approaches to computing trigonometric functions (sine and cosine) for a given input value (`10`). **Test Case 1: "q"** This test case uses custom, hand-coded JavaScript functions `sines()` and `coses()`. These functions take advantage of the periodicity of sine and cosine functions by adjusting the input value to fall within the range `[0, 2π)` (where π is approximately 3.14159) using clever mathematical tricks. **Test Case 2: "native"** This test case uses the built-in `Math.sin()` and `Math.cos()` functions provided by JavaScript's standard library. These functions are implemented in C++ (or another low-level language) and optimized for performance, making them a good reference point for comparison. **What options are compared?** The two test cases compare the performance of custom, hand-coded JavaScript functions (`sines()` and `coses()`) against the built-in `Math.sin()` and `Math.cos()` functions. **Pros and Cons:** 1. **Custom functions ("q"):** * Pros: + Can be implemented in a more efficient way for specific use cases. + Might run faster if executed in a specific environment (e.g., Node.js, browser). * Cons: + Less portable across different environments. + May introduce errors or inconsistencies if not carefully implemented. 2. **Built-in functions ("native"):** * Pros: + Widely supported and portable across all JavaScript environments. + Implementations are optimized for performance. * Cons: + Might be less efficient than custom implementations for specific use cases. **Other considerations:** 1. **Browser engine optimizations:** Some browsers might have built-in optimizations or caching mechanisms that can affect the performance of these functions. This test case is not considering such optimizations. 2. **Context-dependent performance:** The performance difference between custom and built-in functions might vary depending on the execution context (e.g., Node.js, browser), input values, and other factors. **Library used:** None explicitly mentioned in the JSON. However, `Math.sin()` and `Math.cos()` are part of JavaScript's standard library. **Special JS feature or syntax:** None explicitly mentioned in this test case.
Related benchmarks:
pi 180
trigetry
Sqrt vs Alpha max plus beta min algorithm
fast sin cos vs math sin cos
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?