Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
normalize vector - Math.sqrt vs all squared vs all squared 1
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Math.sqrt vs all squared vs all squared 1
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Math.sqrt
const x = 1; const y = -1; const velocity = { x: 0, y: 0 }; const length = Math.sqrt(x * x + y * y); velocity.x = length > 0 ? x / length : 0; velocity.y = length > 0 ? y / length : 0;
all squared
const x = 1; const y = -1; const velocity = { x: 0, y: 0 }; const lengthSquared = x ** 2 + y ** 2; velocity.x = (lengthSquared > 0 ? x ** 2 / lengthSquared : 0) * (x < 0 ? -1 : 1); velocity.y = (lengthSquared > 0 ? y ** 2 / lengthSquared : 0) * (y < 0 ? -1 : 1);
all squared 1
const x = 1; const y = -1; const velocity = { x: 0, y: 0 }; const lengthSquared = x ** 2 + y ** 2; const velocityScale = lengthSquared > 0 ? 1 / lengthSquared : 0; velocity.x = x * velocityScale; velocity.y = y * velocityScale;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Math.sqrt
all squared
all squared 1
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:122.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/122.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 122 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
Test name
Executions per second
Math.sqrt
149074000.0 Ops/sec
all squared
332072096.0 Ops/sec
all squared 1
325019264.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and its test cases. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark is designed to compare three approaches for normalizing vectors in JavaScript: 1. `Math.sqrt`: using the `Math.sqrt` function to calculate the length of the vector, followed by scaling the vector components. 2. `all squared`: directly calculating the square of each component of the vector and dividing it by the sum of squares of both components (length). 3. `all squared 1`: similar to the second approach, but multiplying each component with the inverse of its squared value. **Options Compared** The three options are compared in terms of their execution speed, which is measured in executions per second. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **Math.sqrt**: This approach uses a well-known mathematical function that has been optimized for performance. * Pros: generally faster than the other two approaches due to its optimized implementation. * Cons: may involve additional function calls or memory allocations, depending on the specific JavaScript engine used. 2. **all squared**: This approach involves direct calculations of squares and divisions, which can be slower due to the overhead of arithmetic operations. * Pros: avoids potential overhead of function calls and simplifies the code. * Cons: may be slower than the `Math.sqrt` approach due to the complexity of the calculation. 3. **all squared 1**: This approach is similar to the second one but includes additional logic for handling negative component values, which can introduce extra complexity and slow it down. **Library and Special JS Features** There are no explicit libraries used in this benchmark, as all calculations are performed using built-in JavaScript functions (e.g., `Math.sqrt`, exponentiation). However, there is a special JavaScript feature at play: **arithmetic operations on numbers with the same precision as floating-point types**. In modern JavaScript engines, when performing arithmetic operations on integers or floats, the results may be represented in a different format due to numerical stability considerations (e.g., avoiding integer overflow). This behavior can affect performance and accuracy of calculations. **Other Alternatives** To further optimize vector normalization, other approaches could include: 1. **Native assembly code**: using low-level assembly languages like x86 or ARM instruction sets for optimal execution speed. 2. **Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation**: compiling the benchmark script into machine-specific bytecode at runtime to minimize overhead and improve performance. 3. **Parallelization**: executing multiple instances of each approach concurrently to take advantage of multi-core processors and parallel processing capabilities. Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely require significant changes to the benchmark codebase and may not be feasible for a simple benchmark like this one.
Related benchmarks:
Math.sqrt vs multiply2
Math.pow(x,0.25) vs Math.sqrt(sqrt(x))
Math.pow(x,0.5) vs Math.sqrt(x) 12
(x ** 0.5) vs Math.sqrt(x)
Math.pow(x,2) vs Math.sqrt(x)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?