Benchmark: math powers - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Multiplication
var x = 13*13*13
Pow Operator
var y = 13**3
Math.pow
var z = Math.pow(13,3);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Multiplication
Pow Operator
Math.pow

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:86.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/86.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 86 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Multiplication	1171030400.0 Ops/sec
Pow Operator	1171168640.0 Ops/sec
Math.pow	1171642368.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's tested in the provided benchmark and explain the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmarking Purpose**
The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of different ways to calculate powers (exponentiation) in JavaScript. The tests focus on three specific methods:

1. **Multiplication**: Using repeated multiplication to calculate `x = 13 * 13 * 13`.
2. **Pow Operator**: Using the built-in exponentiation operator (`**`) to calculate `y = 13 ** 3`.
3. **Math.pow**: Using the `Math.pow` function to calculate `z = Math.pow(13, 3)`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of three different approaches:

* **Multiplication**: Repeated multiplication is a straightforward but inefficient method for exponentiation.
* **Pow Operator**: The built-in exponentiation operator (`**`) is often optimized by JavaScript engines for performance.
* **Math.pow**: This function provides an explicit way to calculate powers, which may have overhead compared to the built-in operator.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Multiplication**:
	* Pros: Easy to implement, no dependencies on external libraries or built-in functions.
	* Cons: Inefficient due to repeated multiplications, leading to higher constant factors and slower performance.
2. **Pow Operator** (`**`):
	* Pros: Optimized by JavaScript engines for better performance, often used in modern code.
	* Cons: May not be supported in older browsers or environments that don't have this operator implemented.
3. **Math.pow**:
	* Pros: Explicit and easy to understand, can provide a degree of control over the calculation.
	* Cons: May have overhead compared to the built-in exponentiation operator, depending on the JavaScript engine.

**Library Used**
In the provided benchmark, no external libraries are used. However, if test cases were using libraries like `lodash` or `mathjs`, these would provide additional functionality for calculations and potentially alter the performance characteristics of the benchmarks.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**
None of the provided tests rely on special JavaScript features or syntax beyond basic arithmetic operations and the built-in exponentiation operator (`**`). If test cases were using other advanced features like async/await, generators, or modern ES6+ syntax, this would be noted to provide more context for interpreting the results.

**Other Alternatives**

For comparing the performance of different ways to calculate powers in JavaScript, alternatives could include:

* Using a loop with multiplication (`for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) { x *= 13; }`)
* Utilizing bitwise exponentiation operators (e.g., `x = 13 << 9`)
* Implementing a simple polynomial approximation for powers (e.g., using Taylor series expansions)

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives would have its own trade-offs in terms of simplicity, performance, and code readability.

Related benchmarks:

math powers (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Multiplication vs Pow Operator vs Math.pow

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Multiplication

Pow Operator

Math.pow

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):