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
gemma2:9b
, generated one year ago):
This benchmark tests the performance of calculating sine and cosine values using two different approaches: **Option 1: Custom Implementation (`q` test)** - The code defines two functions, `sines(x)` and `coses(x)`, which implement their own approximations for sine and cosine calculations. These functions use a specific mathematical formula to compute the results. **Option 2: Built-in Math Functions (`native` test)** - This option utilizes JavaScript's built-in `Math.sin(x)` and `Math.cos(x)` functions, which are optimized for performance by the browser or JavaScript engine. **Pros and Cons:** * **Custom Implementation (`q`):** * **Potential for Optimization:** With careful tuning, a custom implementation might achieve slightly better performance than built-in functions in certain scenarios. * **Understanding Math:** It offers a deeper understanding of how trigonometric calculations are performed mathematically. * **Flexibility:** You can potentially modify the formula to suit specific needs or constraints. * **Cons:** * **Potentially Slower:** Without careful optimization, custom implementations often lag behind built-in functions. * **Maintenance Burden:** You're responsible for maintaining and updating the code. * **Built-in Math Functions (`native`):** * **Generally Faster:** These functions are highly optimized by the underlying JavaScript engine, making them very efficient. * **Easier to Use:** They're readily available and require minimal code. * **Well-Tested:** They have been extensively tested and refined. * **Cons:** * **Less Control:** You have limited control over the internal implementation of these functions. **Other Considerations:** * **Specific Needs:** If your application has very specific performance requirements or needs tailored trigonometric calculations, a custom implementation might be worth exploring. * **Maintenance Costs:** The time and effort required to maintain custom code should be weighed against the potential performance gains. * **Benchmark Results:** The benchmark results show that in this case, the built-in `Math` functions (`native` test) are significantly faster than the custom implementation (`q` test). **Alternatives:** * You could investigate specialized libraries designed for high-performance numerical computations (e.g., NumPy for Python). These libraries often utilize optimized algorithms and hardware acceleration to achieve even greater speed.
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?