Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
loop vs recursion
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
recursion vs loop
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
recursion
x = function (n){ n++; if (n < 10000){x(n);}; } x(0)
loop
x = function (n){ while(n < 10000){ n++}}; x(0);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
recursion
loop
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:151.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/151.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 151 on Linux
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=629432" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
loop
132K/s
recursion
5K/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
loop
132,422 Ops/sec
recursion
5,244 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its results. **Benchmark Overview** The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: recursive function calls versus explicit loops. The goal is to determine which approach is faster for this specific test case. **Benchmark Definition** The JSON data defines a single benchmark with two test cases: 1. **Recursion**: A recursive function `x` that increments its input `n` until `n` reaches 10,000. The function calls itself recursively with the incremented value. 2. **Loop**: An explicit loop that increments a variable `n` from 0 to 9,999. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares two approaches: * **Recursive Function Calls (Recursion)**: This approach uses a recursive function to iterate until a condition is met. The benefits of recursion include ease of implementation and potential for parallelization. However, it can lead to: + Increased memory usage due to the call stack. + Potential performance issues with deep recursion. * **Explicit Loops**: This approach uses a loop to iterate until a condition is met. The benefits of loops include: + Efficient use of resources (memory and CPU). + Easy to implement and maintain. **Pros and Cons** * **Recursive Function Calls:** + Pros: - Easier to understand and implement for simple cases. - Can be parallelized, which can improve performance. + Cons: - Increased memory usage due to the call stack. - Potential performance issues with deep recursion. * **Explicit Loops:** + Pros: - Efficient use of resources (memory and CPU). - Easy to implement and maintain. + Cons: - May be more complex to understand and implement for some cases. **Library Usage** Neither of the test cases uses a library, so there are no additional dependencies or optimizations to consider. **Special JS Features/Syntax** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. The code follows standard JavaScript syntax. **Other Alternatives** If you were to run this benchmark on a different platform or with different hardware, the results might vary. However, the fundamental performance difference between recursive function calls and explicit loops should remain consistent. Some alternative approaches could be: * **Iterative Function**: Instead of recursion, an iterative approach using a loop would be another option. * **Closure-based Approach**: Using closures to implement the recursive function could potentially improve performance by avoiding the overhead of creating new stack frames. * **Async Approach**: Running the benchmark in parallel or using asynchronous programming could also provide insights into the performance differences between these approaches.
Related benchmarks
Benchmark: flatMap vs reduce vs while vs foreach
Benchmark: flatMap vs reduce vs while vs foreach vs for of
Array fill vs for i loop
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?