Benchmark: Math.radom() * 40

Script Preparation code:

var a = [];

Tests:

cycle
for(var i=0; i<40; i++) { a[i] = Math.random() ; }
no cycle
a[0] = Math.random(); a[1] = Math.random(); a[2] = Math.random(); a[3] = Math.random(); a[4] = Math.random(); a[5] = Math.random(); a[6] = Math.random(); a[7] = Math.random(); a[8] = Math.random(); a[9] = Math.random(); a[10] = Math.random(); a[11] = Math.random(); a[12] = Math.random(); a[13] = Math.random(); a[14] = Math.random(); a[15] = Math.random(); a[16] = Math.random(); a[17] = Math.random(); a[18] = Math.random(); a[19] = Math.random(); a[20] = Math.random(); a[21] = Math.random(); a[22] = Math.random(); a[23] = Math.random(); a[24] = Math.random(); a[25] = Math.random(); a[26] = Math.random(); a[27] = Math.random(); a[28] = Math.random(); a[29] = Math.random(); a[30] = Math.random(); a[31] = Math.random(); a[32] = Math.random(); a[33] = Math.random(); a[34] = Math.random(); a[35] = Math.random(); a[36] = Math.random(); a[37] = Math.random(); a[38] = Math.random(); a[39] = Math.random();
do while
var i = 0; do { i = i + 1; a[i] = Math.random(); } while (i < 40);
cycle without Math.random()
for(var i=0; i<40; i++) { a[i] = i; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
cycle
no cycle
do while
cycle without Math.random()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.4324.192 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
cycle	66416.4 Ops/sec
no cycle	65043.4 Ops/sec
do while	67217.4 Ops/sec
cycle without Math.random()	212103.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark is defined in the `benchmark.json` file, which contains four test cases:

1. `Math.random() * 40`
2. For loop with `Math.random()` (no assignment to an array)
3. Do-while loop with `Math.random()` (no assignment to an array)
4. For loop without `Math.random()` (assignment to an array)

The benchmark measures the performance of these four approaches.

**Options Compared**

The options compared are:

1. **For Loop**: A traditional for loop that assigns a random value to an array.
2. **Do-While Loop**: A do-while loop that also assigns a random value to an array.
3. **No Cycle**: A for loop without the `Math.random()` call, which is essentially just incrementing an index.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **For Loop with Math.random()**:
	* Pros: Simulates real-world scenarios where you need to perform multiple operations.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of generating random numbers.
2. **Do-While Loop with Math.random()**:
	* Pros: Can be faster than traditional for loops because it avoids the overhead of incrementing a counter.
	* Cons: May not accurately represent real-world scenarios where you need to perform multiple operations.
3. **No Cycle**:
	* Pros: Simplifies the benchmark by removing unnecessary complexity.
	* Cons: Does not accurately represent real-world scenarios where you need to perform multiple operations.

**Library Used**

There is no specific library used in this benchmark, except for `Math` and its functions (`random()`).

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses a traditional for loop, do-while loop, and array assignment. There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used beyond standard ES6 syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to add more test cases to this benchmark, some alternatives could include:

1. **Array.prototype.forEach()**: A method that iterates over an array without assigning values to individual elements.
2. **Array.prototype.map()**: A method that creates a new array with transformed values.
3. **Async/await loops**: Loops that use async/await syntax to handle asynchronous operations.

These additional test cases could help measure the performance of different JavaScript iteration methods and array manipulation techniques.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The preparation code for each test case is as follows:

1. `var a = [];`
2. No preparation code (the loop starts immediately).
3. `var i = 0;` followed by the do-while loop.
4. `for(var i=0; i<40; i++) { ... }`

The HTML preparation code is null, indicating that no HTML elements are needed for this benchmark.

Overall, this benchmark provides a comprehensive set of test cases to measure the performance of different JavaScript iteration methods and array manipulation techniques.

Related benchmarks:

Math.radom() * 40 (version: 2)

test cycles performance

Comparing performance of: cycle vs no cycle vs do while vs cycle without Math.random()

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

cycle

no cycle

do while

cycle without Math.random()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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