Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Finite vs Known Multiples
(version: 0)
I'm a dog with a bone.
Comparing performance of:
Finite - Test all numbers within limit vs Multiples Only
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var limit = 10; var total = 0;
Tests:
Finite - Test all numbers within limit
for (var i = 0; i < limit; i++) { if (i % 3 === 0 || i % 5 == 0) { total += i; } } console.log(total);
Multiples Only
var multiples = []; var i = 1; while (i * 3 < limit) { let m = i * 3; !multiples.includes(m) && multiples.push(m); i++; } i = 0; while (i * 5 < limit) { let m = i * 5; !multiples.includes(m) && multiples.push(m); i++; } console.log(multiples.reduce((a, b) => a + b, 0));
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Finite - Test all numbers within limit
Multiples Only
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):
**Overview of the Benchmark** The provided benchmark measures the performance of two approaches to find multiples of specific numbers within a given range: using a traditional `for` loop and an array-based approach. **Approaches Compared** 1. **Finite - Test all numbers within limit**: This approach uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the numbers from 0 to the specified limit (`limit = 10`) and checks if each number is a multiple of either 3 or 5 (i.e., `i % 3 === 0 || i % 5 == 0`). If it is, the number is added to a running total. The loop iterates `limit` times. 2. **Multiples Only**: This approach uses two `while` loops to generate an array of multiples for both 3 and 5 within the specified range (i.e., `i * 3 < limit` and `i * 5 < limit`). It then uses the `reduce()` method to sum up these multiples. **Pros and Cons** 1. **Finite - Test all numbers within limit**: * Pros: Simple, intuitive approach that leverages the familiarity of traditional loops. * Cons: May be slower for large ranges due to the overhead of loop iteration and conditional checks. 2. **Multiples Only**: * Pros: More efficient for generating multiples in bulk, using array operations. * Cons: Requires creating an intermediate array and performing additional calculations, which can add complexity. **Library Usage** The benchmark uses JavaScript's built-in `Array.prototype.includes()` method to check if a number is present in the `multiples` array. This is a standard JavaScript API that provides efficient membership testing for arrays. **Special JS Feature/Syntax (None)** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark beyond the standard `for`, `while`, and `if` statements, as well as basic arithmetic operations (`%` and addition). **Alternatives** Other alternatives to consider when approaching this type of performance benchmark: 1. **Use a just-in-time (JIT) compiler**: Modern JavaScript engines like V8 (used by Chrome) have JIT compilers that can significantly improve performance by compiling frequently executed code into native machine code. 2. **Use parallel processing or concurrency**: If the range is large, using multiple threads or processes can take advantage of multi-core processors to speed up execution time. 3. **Consider caching or memoization**: If the input range or the multiples array is large and remains relatively constant, consider storing the results of expensive calculations in a cache or applying memoization techniques to avoid redundant computations. Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements of your use case and the characteristics of the input data.
Related benchmarks:
+string vs Number vs parseInt
parseInt vs Number vs plus
Math.Max() vs Ternary
Number vs + vs parseFloat + properties px
parseInt vs Number BigInts
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?