Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
multiply-vs-divide
(version: 0)
multiply-vs-divide
Comparing performance of:
multiply vs divide
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var dataset = new Array(1000000).map((it, i) => Math.random()*100);
Tests:
multiply
const calc = dataset.map((it) => (0.2*it))
divide
const calc = dataset.map((it) => (it/5))
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
multiply
divide
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 its test cases. **What is being tested?** The benchmark is comparing two approaches to perform a simple calculation on a large dataset: 1. Multiplication (`multiply`) 2. Division (`divide`) Specifically, for each approach, we're multiplying or dividing an array of random numbers by a fixed constant (0.2 for multiplication and 5 for division). **Options being compared** We have two options being compared: 1. **Multiplication**: `const calc = dataset.map((it) => (0.2*it))` * Pros: + Simple and straightforward to implement. * Cons: + May be slower due to the repeated multiplication operation for each element in the array. 2. **Division**: `const calc = dataset.map((it) => (it/5))` * Pros: + May be faster than multiplication since division is typically faster than multiplication, especially for smaller numbers. * Cons: + Requires careful handling of edge cases where division by zero may occur. **Other considerations** * **Array iteration**: Both approaches use the `map()` method to iterate over the array. This is a common pattern in JavaScript and is likely optimized for performance. * **Constant factor**: The constant factor used in both approaches (0.2 for multiplication, 5 for division) affects the relative performance of each approach. **Libraries and special features** There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, the use of `map()` suggests that JavaScript's built-in array methods are being utilized. **Special syntax** The use of template literals (e.g., `(0.2*it)`) is not particularly noteworthy, as it's a common way to create string-like expressions in JavaScript. **Alternatives** If you were to rewrite this benchmark using alternative approaches, here are some possibilities: 1. **Native array operations**: Instead of using `map()`, you could use native array operations like `for` loops or `reduce()` to perform the calculations. 2. **Caching**: If the dataset is fixed and doesn't change frequently, you might consider caching the results of previous calculations to avoid recalculating them on each run. 3. **Parallel processing**: For very large datasets, you could explore parallel processing techniques like worker threads or libraries like Web Workers to speed up the calculations. Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely alter the benchmark's behavior and may not provide a direct comparison with the original implementation.
Related benchmarks:
Fill array with random integers
Array slice vs for loop 1000 elements
new Array() vs Array.from() with random data
Array.from VS spreading for "new Set()"
Array.from VS spreading for
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?