Benchmark: Benchmark with such name already exis

Tests:

Math.
var tmp = Math.pow(6, 2);
Math.pow vs ** vs
var tmp = Math.pow(6, 1 / 8);
Math.pow vs **
var tmp = Math.pow(6, 1 / 64);
Math.pow vs
var tmp = Math.pow(6, 1 / 256);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.
Math.pow vs ** vs
Math.pow vs **
Math.pow vs

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/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Math.

241.3M/s

Math.pow vs

230.5M/s

Math.pow vs **

226.0M/s

Math.pow vs ** vs

215.8M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Math.	241,343,872 Ops/sec
Math.pow vs	230,521,248 Ops/sec
Math.pow vs **	225,993,184 Ops/sec
Math.pow vs ** vs	215,805,856 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark presented evaluates the performance of different approaches to raise a number to a power in JavaScript. It focuses on the efficiency of the built-in `Math.pow` function versus the exponentiation operator (`**`), using various exponent values. Here’s a breakdown of the tests and considerations:

### Benchmark Overview
- **Test Cases**: Four individual test cases are executed, with varying exponent values.
  - **Test #1**: `Math.pow(6, 2)` — simply raises 6 to the power of 2.
  - **Test #2**: `Math.pow(6, 1 / 8)` — raises 6 to the power of (1/8), testing a fractional exponent.
  - **Test #3**: `Math.pow(6, 1 / 64)` — another fractional exponent case.
  - **Test #4**: `Math.pow(6, 1 / 256)` — yet another fractional exponent with a smaller fraction.

The performance of these tests is recorded, returning the number of executions per second.

### Comparisons and Pros/Cons
1. **`Math.pow`**:
   - **Pros**:
     - Well-established and widely used across various JavaScript versions.
     - Explicit and clear in intention, which can improve code readability for those unfamiliar with operators.
   - **Cons**:
     - May incur a slightly higher performance cost compared to the `**` operator for large sets of calculations.

2. **Exponentiation Operator (`**`)**:
   - **Pros**:
     - Introduced in ES6 (ECMAScript 2015), succinct syntax allows for easy readability and elegance in expressions.
     - Typically optimized by JavaScript engines, potentially leading to better performance, especially in complex expressions.
   - **Cons**:
     - Compatibility needs to be checked for older environments; not supported in Internet Explorer.

### Benchmark Results
From the results provided:
- **Executions Per Second**:
  - The results indicate that `Math.pow(6, 2)` achieved the highest number of executions per second at 241,343,872.
  - The other tests with the fractional exponents (`Math.pow(6, 1 / 8)`, `Math.pow(6, 1 / 64)`, and `Math.pow(6, 1 / 256)`) continued to decrease in performance but were generally close in their performance metrics, avoiding significant outliers.

### Alternative Approaches
1. **Custom Power Functions**: Users can implement their own power function using loops or recursion.
   - **Pros**: Flexibility and control over the implementation.
   - **Cons**: Likely much slower than the built-in functions, especially for larger numbers or powers.

2. **Libraries**: 
   - Libraries such as `math.js` also provide power functions that can handle complex operations (including matrices and units).
   - **Pros**: Extensive functionality that goes beyond basic arithmetic, useful in scientific computations.
   - **Cons**: Added overhead of including the library in projects, leading to potential performance and size trade-offs.

### Special JS Features
- **Exponentiation Operator (`**`)**: As mentioned, this is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) that allows for a concise way to express exponentiation. It is designed to be an intuitive and easy-to-read alternative to `Math.pow`.

### Conclusion
Peering into these benchmarks allows developers to make informed choices on how to implement exponentiation in their JavaScript code. Whether leaning towards established methods like `Math.pow` or adopting the newer `**` operator can depend on their performance needs, provided compatibility, and the complexity of their coding environment.

Benchmark with such name already exis (version: 1)

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

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Math.

Math.pow vs ** vs

Math.pow vs **

Math.pow vs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Benchmark with such name already exis (version: 1)

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

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Math.

Math.pow vs ** vs

Math.pow vs **

Math.pow vs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

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