Benchmark: math pow 5 vs multiply

Tests:

pow
var x = Math.pow(54,5);
mult
var y = 54*54*54*54*54

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 month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:135.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/135.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 135 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
pow	887454720.0 Ops/sec
mult	1107337600.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark defined in the provided JSON compares two methods for calculating the fifth power of the number 54: using `Math.pow` and a series of multiplications. Here’s a detailed explanation of what is being tested, the pros and cons of each approach, and relevant considerations.

### Benchmark Overview

**Test Cases:**
1. **`Math.pow(54, 5)`**
   - This utilizes the built-in JavaScript function `Math.pow`, which raises a base (54) to an exponent (5).
   - **Test Name:** "pow"

2. **`54 * 54 * 54 * 54 * 54`**
   - This approach explicitly multiplies the number 54 by itself four additional times.
   - **Test Name:** "mult"

### Performance Results

From the latest benchmark results, we see the following:

- **Multiplication Method ("mult")**:
  - Executions per second: 1,107,337,600
- **Power Method ("pow")**:
  - Executions per second: 887,454,720

The multiplication method significantly outperforms the power function in this specific benchmark, executing nearly 25% faster.

### Pros and Cons of Each Approach

#### Math.pow

**Pros:**
- **Readability**: `Math.pow(base, exponent)` is clear and explicitly states the operation. This is particularly beneficial in cases where base and exponent variables might be used.
- **Built-in and Optimized**: As a part of the JavaScript standard library, `Math.pow` is optimized for various scenarios across different environments.

**Cons:**
- **Performance**: In this benchmark, it is slower compared to manual multiplication due to the overhead associated with function calls and additional internal calculations.

#### Manual Multiplication

**Pros:**
- **Speed**: As demonstrated by the benchmark results, this method is faster in this scenario because it directly performs the arithmetic operations without the overhead of a function call.
- **Simplicity in Some Cases**: For small, fixed exponents, manual multiplication can be straightforward and efficient.

**Cons:**
- **Scalability**: This approach becomes unmanageable for larger exponents because it requires repeated code, making it less elegant and harder to maintain.
- **Readability**: Nested multiplications can quickly become difficult to read and understand compared to `Math.pow`.

### Other Alternatives

1. **Exponentiation Operator (`**`)**: JavaScript also supports the exponentiation operator (`**`), which enables writing `54 ** 5`. This offers similar readability to `Math.pow` while potentially providing better optimization in certain JavaScript engines. However, it might be less familiar to those not accustomed to using this operator.

2. **Libraries**: For more complex mathematical operations, libraries like **mathjs** can be utilized. These libraries allow for easier management of mathematical functions, complex numbers, and symbolic calculations. While they add power, they can introduce additional overhead, especially in smaller computations.

### Key Considerations

- **Context of Use**: For basic and small-range calculations, manual multiplication could be preferable for speed. However, for dynamic or larger calculations, utilizing `Math.pow` or the exponentiation operator may be better for code clarity, maintainability, and scalability.
- **JavaScript Engine Behavior**: Performance can vary based on the JavaScript engine (e.g., V8 in Chrome vs. SpiderMonkey in Firefox). Benchmarks should always be interpreted considering the specific environment where the code will be executed.
- **Readability vs. Performance**: It is crucial to strike a balance between performance and readability. While microbenchmarks are informative, overly optimizing for performance at the expense of code clarity can lead to maintenance challenges down the line.

In conclusion, while the benchmark illustrates that manual multiplication is generally faster than using `Math.pow` for this specific case, the choice between them should weigh factors such as readability, maintainability, and the specific context in which the operation will be used.

Related benchmarks:

math pow 5 vs multiply (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: pow vs mult

Created: one month ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

pow

mult

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one month ago):