Benchmark: aegeea - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

myFn = _ => null

Tests:

if, direct, inline
let now = performance.now(), then = now + 1000; while ((now = performance.now()) < then) if(myFn) myFn();
if, direct, for
for (let now = performance.now(), then = now + 1000; now < then; now = performance.now()) if(myFn) myFn();
and, |0, for
for (let now = performance.now() | 0, then = now + 1000; now < then; now = performance.now() | 0) if(myFn) myFn();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
if, direct, inline
if, direct, for
and, \|0, for

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; CrOS x86_64 13421.102.0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/86.0.4240.199 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 86 on Chrome OS 13421.102.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
if, direct, inline	1.0 Ops/sec
if, direct, for	1.0 Ops/sec
and, \|0, for	1.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is represented by two JSON objects: `Benchmark Definition` and `Script Preparation Code`. In this case, both are empty.

However, looking at the individual test cases, we can infer that the benchmark is testing the performance of a JavaScript function (`myFn`) in different scenarios. The script preparation code sets up a variable `myFn` as an anonymous function (`_ => null`). This suggests that the goal is to measure how long it takes to execute a simple function.

**Individual Test Cases**

The individual test cases compare three different approaches:

1. **if, direct, inline**: This test case uses a traditional `if` statement with the function call inside the block.
2. **if, direct, for**: This test case uses a traditional `for` loop with the function call inside the loop body.
3. **and, |0, for**: This test case uses a bitwise OR operator (`|`) to introduce a minor optimization. The variable `now` is set to an integer value using `now = now | 0`, which discards any fractional part.

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

* **if, direct, inline**: This approach is straightforward and easy to understand. However, it may not be optimized for performance, as the function call is inside the block.
* **if, direct, for**: Similar to the previous approach, this uses a traditional `for` loop, which can lead to overhead due to loop iteration. The function call is still inside the loop body.
* **and, |0, for**: This introduces a minor optimization by discarding fractional parts of the time. However, the effect on performance may be negligible, and this approach adds complexity.

**Library Usage**

There doesn't appear to be any explicit library usage in these test cases. The `performance.now()` function is used, which is part of the JavaScript API.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned or utilized in these test cases.

**Other Alternatives**

To provide a better understanding of performance optimization, here are some alternative approaches that could be considered:

* Using async/await syntax instead of callbacks
* Utilizing Web Workers for parallel execution
* Leveraging native Web APIs (e.g., `requestAnimationFrame()`) for performance-critical code
* Minimizing function call overhead by using memoization or caching

Keep in mind that the specific optimization techniques used depend on the problem being solved, the desired outcome, and the constraints of the project.

The provided benchmark is a simple microbenchmarking exercise to test the performance of different JavaScript execution scenarios. By comparing these approaches, users can gain insight into the overhead introduced by various optimization techniques and make informed decisions about their own code optimizations.

Related benchmarks:

aegeea (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: if, direct, inline vs if, direct, for vs and, |0, for

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

if, direct, inline

if, direct, for

and, |0, for

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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