Benchmark: Math.pow(x,0.5) vs Math.sqrt(x) vs **.5

Script Preparation code:

var numbers = Array.from(Array(10000), (_, x) => (Math.random() * x));

Tests:

Math.sqrt
numbers.forEach(x => Math.sqrt(x));
sqrt with Math.pow
numbers.forEach(x => Math.pow(x,0.5));
sqrt with **
numbers.forEach(x => x ** .5);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.sqrt
sqrt with Math.pow
sqrt with **

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:125.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/125.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 125 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.sqrt	27932.8 Ops/sec
sqrt with Math.pow	25753.6 Ops/sec
sqrt with **	42049.7 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**
The test compares three different ways to calculate the square root of a number in JavaScript: `Math.sqrt(x)`, `x ** 0.5`, and a combination using `Math.pow(x, 0.5)`.

**Script Preparation Code**
This code generates an array of 10,000 random numbers between 1 and the current iteration (due to `x` being out of scope). This will be used as input for each test case.

**Html Preparation Code**
There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that the benchmark only runs in the JavaScript engine's environment.

**Options Compared**

* **Math.sqrt(x)**: The built-in square root function from the Math library.
* **x ** 0.5**: A shorthand way of calculating the square root by raising `x` to the power of 0.5 using exponentiation.
* **Math.pow(x, 0.5)**: A more explicit way of calculating the square root using the `pow()` method.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Math.sqrt(x)**:
	+ Pros: Built-in function, widely supported, and efficient for most cases.
	+ Cons: May be slower than other methods due to its own implementation details (e.g., using a binary search algorithm).
* **x ** 0.5**:
	+ Pros: Shorter syntax, potentially faster execution due to fewer function calls.
	+ Cons: May not be as efficient or accurate for certain edge cases (e.g., very large numbers).
* **Math.pow(x, 0.5)**:
	+ Pros: Explicit and readable, can be used in a more traditional mathematical context.
	+ Cons: Longer syntax, may have slightly slower execution due to the `pow()` method.

**Library Usage**
None of these tests use any external libraries beyond the standard JavaScript library.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**
The only special feature used here is exponentiation (`**`). While not a new feature introduced in recent JavaScript versions, it's still worth noting that some older browsers might not support this syntax (as indicated by the test results).

**Benchmark Results Interpretation**

The latest benchmark results show that `x ** 0.5` is slightly faster than `Math.sqrt(x)` and `Math.pow(x, 0.5)`. However, it's essential to remember that these results are for a specific browser version and platform, and performance may vary across different environments.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives to calculate the square root of a number in JavaScript include:

* Using the `Number.isInteger()` method to check if the input is an integer before using `Math.sqrt()`.
* Implementing your own square root algorithm using a more traditional mathematical approach.
* Using a library like FastMath or Mathjs for faster and more accurate mathematical calculations.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics, readability, and usage scenarios compared to the tested approaches.

Related benchmarks:

Math.pow(x,0.5) vs Math.sqrt(x) vs **.5 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.sqrt vs sqrt with Math.pow vs sqrt with **

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.sqrt

sqrt with Math.pow

sqrt with **

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):