Benchmark: determ - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

my
function my(m) { if (m.length === 1) return m[0][0]; if (m[0].length === 2) return m[0][0] * m[1][1] - m[1][0] * m[0][1]; let result = 0; const [firstRow, ...rest] = m; for (let i = 0; i < firstRow.length; i++) { let sign = i % 2 ? -1 : 1; const minorMatrix = rest.map((item) => item.filter((_, idx) => idx !== i)); result += sign * (firstRow[i] * my(minorMatrix)); } return result; } const m1 = [[1, 2, 3], [8, 7, 6], [5, 4, 3]] my(m1)
not
function not(m) { if (m.length == 0) return 0; if (m.length == 1) return m[0][0]; if (m.length == 2) return m[0][0] * m[1][1] - m[0][1] * m[1][0]; if (m.length > 2) { return m.reduce((prev, curr, i, arr) => { let miniArr = arr.slice(0, i).concat(arr.slice(i + 1)).map(item => item.slice(1)); return prev + (i % 2 == 0 ? 1 : -1 ) * curr[0] * not(miniArr); }, 0); } }; const m1 = [[1, 2, 3], [8, 7, 6], [5, 4, 3]] not(m1)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
my
not

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/88.0.4324.182 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
my	3091241.5 Ops/sec
not	683308.6 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 benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared options, pros and cons, library usage, special JavaScript features, and alternative approaches.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark consists of two test cases: "my" and "not". These test cases are mathematical functions that take a 2D matrix as input and perform various operations on it. The goal of the benchmark is to compare the performance of these two functions in different browsers.

**Script Preparation Code and Html Preparation Code**

The provided JSON indicates that there is no script preparation code or HTML preparation code specified for either test case. This means that the test cases are likely designed to be executed as-is, without any additional setup or configuration.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition for each test case consists of a JavaScript function, which performs some calculations on a 2D matrix. The functions are:

* "my(m)": This function takes a 2D matrix `m` and returns the result of a mathematical operation involving the matrix elements.
* "not(m)": This function also takes a 2D matrix `m` and returns the result of a different mathematical operation.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's likely that some built-in JavaScript functions (e.g., `Array.prototype.map()`, `Array.prototype.filter()`) are being used to perform matrix operations.

**Special JavaScript Features**

The benchmark uses a special JavaScript feature: **Arrow Functions**. The "my" and "not" functions are defined using arrow function syntax, which is a concise way of defining small functions in JavaScript.

**Comparison Options**

The two test cases are compared to determine which one performs better:

* "my(m)": This function calculates the result of a specific mathematical operation involving the matrix elements. The function uses recursion and some clever indexing tricks to achieve this.
* "not(m)": This function also calculates the result of a different mathematical operation, but with a more straightforward approach.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each function:

* "my(m)":
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and elegant implementation
		- Uses recursion to avoid explicit loops
	+ Cons:
		- May be harder to understand or maintain due to its recursive nature
		- Might incur additional overhead due to the recursive calls
* "not(m)":
	+ Pros:
		- More straightforward and easier to understand implementation
		- Avoids recursion, which can be beneficial for performance in some cases
	+ Cons:
		- Longer code length, which might make it harder to read or maintain

**Alternative Approaches**

Some alternative approaches that could be used to implement these functions include:

* Using explicit loops instead of recursion (e.g., "my" function)
* Using a more optimized algorithm for matrix operations (e.g., using NumJS or another library)
* Using parallel processing or multi-threading to take advantage of multiple CPU cores
* Using a different programming paradigm, such as imperative or functional programming

**Other Considerations**

When interpreting the benchmark results, it's essential to consider factors beyond just performance:

* Code readability and maintainability: Which implementation is easier to understand and modify?
* Code size and overhead: How much code is being executed, and what are the implications for performance?
* Resource usage: Are there any significant memory or CPU resource implications associated with each function?

Overall, this benchmark provides a good example of how JavaScript functions can be compared to determine which one performs better in different browsers. By analyzing the pros and cons of each implementation, developers can make informed decisions about their own codebase.

Related benchmarks:

determ (version: 0)

determ

Comparing performance of: my vs not

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

my

not

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):