Benchmark: math pow N63 vs multiply

Tests:

pow
var x = Math.pow(54,63);
mult
var y = (() => { var n = 54; var r = 1; for (var i = 0; i < 63; i++) { r *= n; } return r; })();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pow
mult

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
pow	19814020.0 Ops/sec
mult	31427404.0 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 benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark definition json provides two different approaches to calculate the value of `x` where `x` is the result of either raising 54 to the power of 63 using the `Math.pow()` function or multiplying 54 by itself 63 times using a loop.

**Script Preparation Code and Html Preparation Code**
Both script preparation code and html preparation code are empty, which means that the benchmark does not involve any specific HTML or JavaScript setup. This is likely because the focus is on comparing the performance of the two different mathematical approaches.

**Test Cases**
There are two individual test cases:

1. **"pow"`**: This test case uses the `Math.pow()` function to calculate `x`.
```javascript
var x = Math.pow(54,63);
```
2. **"mult"`**: This test case calculates `x` using a loop that multiplies 54 by itself 63 times.
```javascript
var y = (() => {
    var n = 54;
    var r = 1;
    for (var i = 0; i < 63; i++) {
        r *= n;
    }
    return r;
})();
```
**Library and Purpose**
In the "mult" test case, the library being used is not explicitly mentioned. However, it appears to be a closure (an immediately invoked function expression) that calculates the result using a loop. This is likely a custom implementation for testing purposes.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**
Neither of the two approaches uses any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's commonly available in modern JavaScript implementations.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`Math.pow()`**: The `Math.pow()` function is a built-in JavaScript method that raises a number to a power. It's likely to be implemented efficiently by most JavaScript engines.
	+ Pros: Portable, efficient, and widely supported.
	+ Cons: May involve additional overhead due to its built-in nature.
* **Manual multiplication using a loop**: This approach calculates the result manually by multiplying 54 with itself 63 times.
	+ Pros: Can be more portable than relying on built-in functions, as it doesn't require a specific JavaScript engine implementation.
	+ Cons: May involve additional overhead due to the manual calculation, and is less efficient compared to using `Math.pow()`.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to test alternative approaches, here are some possibilities:

* Using a polynomial approximation of exponentiation (e.g., using the Taylor series expansion)
* Implementing a specialized exponentiation algorithm (e.g., Karatsuba's multiplication algorithm for fast exponentiation)
* Using a different library or framework for performance testing

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional complexity and are not necessarily more suitable for general-purpose benchmarking. The `Math.pow()` function is often the most efficient and straightforward choice for exponentiation operations.

The provided test cases and benchmark definition allow users to compare the performance of two common approaches to calculating large exponents, providing valuable insights into the efficiency of JavaScript engines in executing these types of calculations.

Related benchmarks:

math pow N63 vs multiply (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: pow vs mult

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

pow

mult

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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