Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Odd check
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Bytes vs Devide
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var numbers = []; var check = false; for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { numbers.push(Math.random() * 1000); }
Tests:
Bytes
for (var i = 0; i < numbers.length; i++) { check = (numbers[i] & 0x1) === 0; }
Devide
for (var i = 0; i < numbers.length; i++) { check = (numbers[i] % 2) === 0; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Bytes
Devide
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The provided JSON defines two microbenchmarks: 1. **"Odd check"`: This test checks whether each number in the `numbers` array is even or odd using bitwise operations (`&` and `%`). The test iterates over the length of the `numbers` array. 2. **"Devide"`**: This test performs a simple division operation on each number in the `numbers` array by 2. **Options being compared** The two benchmarks are comparing different approaches to perform the same operations: * For "Odd check", the benchmark uses bitwise AND (`&`) and modulo (`%`) operators, whereas for "Devide", it uses only the modulo operator. * Another option is not explicitly mentioned, but we can assume that a simple iteration over the array without any operations would also be compared. **Pros and cons of each approach** 1. **Bitwise AND (&) and modulo (%)**: This approach is likely to be faster because bitwise operations are often optimized by compilers and interpreted directly by the CPU. * Pros: Can perform multiple operations in a single instruction, reducing overhead. * Cons: May require more complex code, potentially leading to performance regressions if not implemented correctly. 2. **Modulo (%) only**: This approach is simpler and may be less efficient due to the overhead of the modulo operation being performed on each number individually. * Pros: Easier to understand and implement, with fewer opportunities for performance regressions. * Cons: May result in slower execution times due to the additional overhead. **Library usage** There are no libraries mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the `numbers` array is initialized using the `Math.random()` function from the JavaScript Math object, which is part of the ECMAScript Standard Library. **Special JS features or syntax** None are explicitly used in the benchmark definitions. **Other alternatives** Some alternative approaches that come to mind include: * Using a lookup table or precomputed values for the modulo operation. * Using a SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) instruction set, if supported by the CPU and browser. * Optimizing the loop structure using techniques like unrolling or parallelization. Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be feasible or relevant for this specific benchmark, and their implementation would require additional analysis and optimization.
Related benchmarks:
lodash forEach vs array.forEach vs for loop
Array.reduce vs for loops vs Array.forEach
Array Test 1234
array vs float64 for io and slice
gigi becali's test
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?