Benchmark: Inverse + Multiply vs Divide

HTML Preparation code:

<!--your preparation HTML code goes here-->

Script Preparation code:

const n = 5.4321; const m = 1.2345;

Tests:

Divide
const resultN = n / Math.PI; const resultM = m / Math.PI;
Multiply by Inverse
const invPi = 1 / Math.PI; const resultN = n * invPi; const resultM = m * invPi;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Divide
Multiply by Inverse

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/133.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 133 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Divide	175088144.0 Ops/sec
Multiply by Inverse	185659776.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark represented by the JSON provided tests the performance of two mathematical operations in JavaScript: division and multiplication by the reciprocal (inverse). This benchmark is intended to compare the execution speed of these two methods when dividing values by π (Pi), a common mathematical constant frequently used in calculations.

### Comparison of Options

1. **Divide**:
   - **Benchmark Definition**: `const resultN = n / Math.PI; const resultM = m / Math.PI;`
   - **Test Name**: "Divide"
   
   This test directly divides the values `n` and `m` by `Math.PI`. In this case, the operation requires a call to the `Math.PI` property to retrieve the value of Pi and then applies the division.

2. **Multiply by Inverse**:
   - **Benchmark Definition**: `const invPi = 1 / Math.PI; const resultN = n * invPi; const resultM = m * invPi;`
   - **Test Name**: "Multiply by Inverse"
   
   This test first calculates the inverse of π by performing a single division (1 divided by `Math.PI`) and stores it in the variable `invPi`. It then multiplies both `n` and `m` by this precomputed value. Thus, instead of repeatedly accessing `Math.PI`, it retrieves it once and uses it for multiplication.

### Pros and Cons of Each Approach

**Divide**:
- **Pros**:
  - Simplicity: The code is straightforward. It directly conveys the intention of division.
  - Readability: The operation is clear and easily understood, especially for those familiar with arithmetic.

- **Cons**:
  - Performance: Each division operation involves a lookup for `Math.PI`, which can add overhead, especially if there's a significant number of repeated calculations in a larger context.

**Multiply by Inverse**:
- **Pros**:
  - Efficiency: By calculating `invPi` once, this method can potentially reduce the number of mathematical operations, especially if `invPi` is reused. Multiplication can sometimes be faster than division.
  - Reduced Lookup: Since `Math.PI` is accessed only once, it may improve performance especially in a loop or repeated execution context where the operations are called multiple times.

- **Cons**:
  - Slightly more complex: It introduces an extra variable (`invPi`), which could slightly confuse someone unfamiliar with using inverse multiplication as a method for division.
   
### Other Considerations

- **Precision**: Both methods should yield similar precision due to JavaScript’s handling of floating-point arithmetic. However, in scenarios requiring extreme precision calculations, the impact of using different mathematical approaches may vary due to how floating-point errors propagate.
  
- **Execution Context**: The performance difference may become negligible if these calculations are a small part of a larger computation where other factors, like data retrieval or complex processing, take more time.

### Alternatives

Apart from these two methods, there are other potential alternatives for similar computations:

- **Using other libraries**: For more complex mathematical operations, libraries like **math.js** or **numeric.js** could be utilized, providing richer capabilities such as arbitrary precision arithmetic. However, they have higher overhead due to unification and optimization features they provide.
  
- **Typed Arrays**: If performing bulk operations on arrays of numbers (for example, needing to operate on vectors or matrices), you could explore using **Typed Arrays** in JavaScript for efficiency, especially in performance-critical applications.

- **WebAssembly**: For compute-heavy tasks, consider using WebAssembly, which allows you to execute code written in languages like C/C++ or Rust, potentially offering significant performance improvements over JavaScript for numerical computations.

Overall, the benchmark emphasizes comparing two widely used approaches to division in JavaScript, showcasing how performance can be affected by the choice of methods in mathematical operations.

Related benchmarks:

Inverse + Multiply vs Divide (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Divide vs Multiply by Inverse

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Divide

Multiply by Inverse

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 2 months ago):