Benchmark: preload vs static

Script Preparation code:

function fn() {
    return Math.min((20 / 5) * 60, 200)
}

Tests:

Static
let aa = fn() let b = 0 for(let i = 0; i < aa; i++) { b += i; b -= Math.floor(i/2) }
Preload
let b = 0 for(let i = 0; i < fn(); i++) { b += i; b -= Math.floor(i/2) }
Comma Var
for(let i = 0, b = 0; i < fn(); i++) { b += i; b -= Math.floor(i/2) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Static
Preload
Comma Var

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing three approaches:

1. **Static**: This approach uses a variable `aa` to store the result of the expression `(20 / 5) * 60`, which evaluates to 120. Then, it loops from 0 to `aa` (which is 120), adding and subtracting `i/2` from a variable `b`. The goal is to find the minimum value between `bb + i - Math.floor(i/2)` and 200.
2. **Preload**: This approach also uses a variable `aa` to store the result of the expression `(20 / 5) * 60`, just like in the Static case. However, instead of using a loop, it directly calls the function `fn()` to get the value of `aa`. Then, it loops from 0 to `aa` (which is still 120), adding and subtracting `i/2` from a variable `b`.
3. **Comma Var**: This approach uses a slightly different syntax by declaring variables inside the loop declaration. Instead of using `let b = 0`, it declares `b` and `i` directly in the loop: `for(let i = 0, b = 0; i < fn(); i++)`. The rest of the code is similar to the Preload case.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Static**:
	* Pros: This approach is simple and easy to understand.
	* Cons: It may lead to higher overhead due to the extra variable `aa` being stored on the stack.
2. **Preload**:
	* Pros: By directly calling the function, it avoids the overhead of storing the result in a variable.
	* Cons: If the function takes a long time to execute or is not optimized for inlining, it may lead to higher overhead due to the additional function call.
3. **Comma Var**:
	* Pros: This syntax can be beneficial when dealing with small loops or performance-critical code, as it reduces the number of variables on the stack and potentially improves cache locality.
	* Cons: Some compilers or interpreters might not optimize this syntax correctly, leading to potential performance issues.

**Library Usage**

None of the benchmark test cases use any external libraries. The `Math` library is used for basic mathematical operations like division (`20 / 5`) and rounding down (`Math.floor(i/2)`).

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are a few features used in these benchmarks:

1. **Arrow functions**: Although not explicitly mentioned, the provided benchmark definition uses an arrow function (`function fn() { ... }`), which is a shorthand way of defining small, anonymous functions.
2. **Template literals**: The `bb + i - Math.floor(i/2)` expression uses template literals to concatenate strings and variables.

**Other Alternatives**

There are other approaches that could be used for this benchmark:

1. **Loop unrolling**: This approach would involve using a loop with multiple iterations, potentially reducing the number of loops needed.
2. **Vectorization**: If the goal is to measure performance on parallel or vectorized architectures, the benchmark could be rewritten to use SIMD instructions (e.g., `vAdd` and `vSub`) instead of scalar operations.
3. **Just-in-time (JIT) compilation**: The benchmark could be modified to use JIT compilers like V8's CompileToBytecode API or WebAssembly's Jit interface, which would allow for optimized execution of the code at runtime.

These alternatives might provide different results depending on the specific hardware, software stack, and optimization techniques used.

Related benchmarks:

preload vs static (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Static vs Preload vs Comma Var

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Static

Preload

Comma Var

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):