Benchmark: Exponentiation Test Quart

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [0.002, 0.1, 0.25, 0.75, 1]

Tests:

Math.pow
var x = arr.map(v => Math.pow(v, 4));
Exponentiation
var y = arr.map(v => v ** 4);
Mult
var z = arr.map(v => v * v * v * v);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.pow
Exponentiation
Mult

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) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/125.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 125 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Mult

12.3M/s

Exponentiation

3.2M/s

Math.pow

1.9M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Mult	12,343,692 Ops/sec
Exponentiation	3,188,096 Ops/sec
Math.pow	1,914,174 Ops/sec

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 being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a set of benchmark tests on MeasureThat.net, which allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The tests are designed to measure the performance of different mathematical operations.

In this specific benchmark, three test cases are compared:

1. **`Math.pow`**: This function calculates the power of a number. In this case, it's used to raise each element in an array `arr` to the power of 4.
2. **`Exponentiation`** (using the `**` operator): This is a shorthand way of raising a number to a power using the exponentiation operator.
3. **`Mult`**: This test case calculates the product of four consecutive numbers in the array `arr`, which is equivalent to raising each element to the fourth power.

**Options compared**

The benchmark tests different ways of achieving the same result:

* Using the `Math.pow` function
* Using the exponentiation operator (`**`)
* Manual multiplication of four consecutive numbers

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **`Math.pow`**: This is a standard JavaScript function that's widely supported. It's also relatively efficient, as it uses a single instruction to calculate the power.
	* Pros: Widely supported, efficient
	* Cons: May have overhead due to function calls, less optimized for performance compared to manual multiplication
2. **Exponentiation (`**` operator)**: This is a shorthand way of raising a number to a power using the exponentiation operator.
	* Pros: More concise and expressive, potentially faster than `Math.pow`
	* Cons: May have overhead due to operator resolution, less predictable performance compared to manual multiplication
3. **Manual multiplication (`Mult`)**: This approach calculates the product of four consecutive numbers in the array, which is equivalent to raising each element to the fourth power.
	* Pros: Potential for better cache locality and reduced overhead compared to `Math.pow`
	* Cons: May be less readable and maintainable than using a standard function or operator

**Other considerations**

* The benchmark uses an array of numbers (`arr`) with specific values, which may affect the results. It's essential to consider how this data would perform in real-world scenarios.
* The use of `var` instead of `let` or `const` may impact performance due to variable hoisting.

**Libraries and special JS features**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition, but MeasureThat.net likely relies on a JavaScript runtime environment that provides standard functions like `Math.pow`. If any special JavaScript features (like `async/await` or `generators`) were used in the script preparation code, it would be noted.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for achieving exponentiation and multiplication could include:

* Using a library like `mathjs` or `numjs`, which provide optimized mathematical functions.
* Implementing custom algorithms using bitwise operations or other low-level techniques to reduce overhead.
* Considering alternative data structures or algorithms that may improve performance in specific scenarios.

Exponentiation Test Quart (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Math.pow vs Exponentiation vs Mult`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Math.pow

Exponentiation

Mult

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Exponentiation Test Quart (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.pow vs Exponentiation vs Mult

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Math.pow

Exponentiation

Mult

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Math.pow vs Exponentiation vs Mult`