Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Math.pow() versus **
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
pow vs **
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var values = []; const rand = () => Math.floor(5+Math.random()*10); for(let i=0; i<50; i++){ values.push([rand(), rand()]); }
Tests:
pow
values.forEach(x => (Math.pow(x[0], x[1])))
**
values.forEach(x => (x[0] ** x[1]))
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
pow
**
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 Overview** The benchmark is comparing the performance of two ways to calculate the power of a number: using the `Math.pow()` function versus exponentiation operator (`**`). **Options Compared** There are only two options compared in this benchmark: 1. **Using `Math.pow()`:** This method takes two arguments, the base and the exponent, and returns the result. 2. **Exponentiation Operator (`**`):** This is a new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2016 (ES6) that allows for exponentiation without explicitly calling a function. **Pros and Cons** Using `Math.pow()` has some pros: * It's been around for a long time, so it's likely to be supported by most browsers. * It's a well-known and widely used method for calculating powers. However, it also has some cons: * It may be slower than the exponentiation operator due to the overhead of calling a function. * It's not as concise or readable as the `**` operator. The exponentiation operator (`**`) has its own pros: * It's concise and readable. * It's likely to be faster since it's just an operator, rather than a function call. However, it also has some cons: * It may not work in older browsers that don't support ES6 features. * It can lead to typos if not used carefully (e.g., `x**y` instead of `x.pow(y)`). **Library and Special JS Feature** There is no library being used in this benchmark. The `Math.pow()` function is a built-in part of the JavaScript standard library. The exponentiation operator (`**`) is also a built-in feature, but it was introduced as a new syntax in ES6. **Other Considerations** * The benchmark uses a simple random number generator to generate data for the calculations. This may not be representative of real-world usage. * The benchmark only runs on desktop browsers (Chrome 83) with Windows operating system. It's not clear if the results would be similar on other platforms or browsers. **Other Alternatives** If you wanted to create a similar benchmark, you could consider adding more options or variants, such as: * Using `Math.sqrt()` instead of `Math.pow()` * Using a different random number generator * Adding more browser versions or operating systems * Measuring performance with different input sizes or distributions
Related benchmarks:
Fill array with random integers
array vs float64 for io and slice
Math.pow(x,0.5) vs x ** 0.5
Spread Operator VS Array.prototype.slice() VS Array.prototype.slice(0)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?