Benchmark: Math.max/min vs function ternary vs inline ternary

Script Preparation code:

var number = Math.random() * 1000;
var min = Math.random() * 300;
var max = Math.random() * 1200;

function ternaryClamp(number, min, max) {
  return number > max ? max : (number < min ? min : number);
}
function ternaryMin(number, min) {
  return number < min ? number: min;
}
function ternaryMax(number, max) {
  return number > max ? number: max;
}

​x
 
var number = Math.random() * 1000;var min = Math.random() * 300;var max = Math.random() * 1200;​function ternaryClamp(number, min, max) {  return number > max ? max : (number < min ? min : number);}function ternaryMin(number, min) {  return number < min ? number: min;}function ternaryMax(number, max) {  return number > max ? number: max;}

Tests:

Math.min/max
Math.min(Math.max(number, min), max)
Math.min(Math.max(number, min), max)
Math.min
Math.min(number, min)
Math.min(number, min)
Math.max
Math.max(number, max)
Math.max(number, max)
Ternary clamp
ternaryClamp(number, min, max);
ternaryClamp(number, min, max);
Ternary min
ternaryMin(number, min)
ternaryMin(number, min)
Ternary max
ternaryMax(number, max)
ternaryMax(number, max)
Ternary clamp inlined
number > max ? max : (number < min ? min : number)
number > max ? max : (number < min ? min : number)
Ternary min inlined
number < min ? number: min
number < min ? number: min
Ternary max inlined
number > max ? number: max
number > max ? number: max

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
Math.min/max
Math.min
Math.max
Ternary clamp
Ternary min
Ternary max
Ternary clamp inlined
Ternary min inlined
Ternary max inlined

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 22 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; CrOS x86_64 14541.0.0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Chrome OS 14541.0.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.min/max	14949082.0 Ops/sec
Math.min	20418864.0 Ops/sec
Math.max	19264802.0 Ops/sec
Ternary clamp	17589622.0 Ops/sec
Ternary min	18996174.0 Ops/sec
Ternary max	21272432.0 Ops/sec
Ternary clamp inlined	17180900.0 Ops/sec
Ternary min inlined	19431834.0 Ops/sec
Ternary max inlined	20903712.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 7 months ago):

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

Benchmark Definition:

The benchmark is comparing different ways to clamp numbers within a specified range using JavaScript.

Options Being Compared:

Math.max/min: Using the built-in Math.max and Math.min functions.
Ternary Clamp Functions: Three custom functions that perform similar operations:
- ternaryClamp(number, min, max): Returns the minimum of the number and the maximum value if it's outside the range.
- ternaryMin(number, min): Returns the smaller of the two values (number and minimum).
- ternaryMax(number, max): Returns the larger of the two values (number and maximum).
Inline Ternary Expressions: Two inline expressions that perform the same operations as the ternary clamp functions:
- number > max ? max : (number < min ? min : number)
- number < min ? number: min
- number > max ? number: max

Pros and Cons of Each Approach:

Math.max/min: Fast and efficient, but may not be as intuitive or flexible.
Ternary Clamp Functions:
- Pros: More readable, flexible, and reusable code.
- Cons: May have performance overhead due to function calls.
Inline Ternary Expressions:
- Pros: Compact, fast, and efficient.
- Cons: Less readable and less maintainable.

Library Used:

None explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the Math.max and Math.min functions are part of the JavaScript standard library.

Special JS Features or Syntax:

Not explicitly used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing different coding approaches rather than showcasing specific features.

Other Considerations:

Performance: Measuring execution speed can help determine which approach is faster.
Code Readability and Maintainability: Evaluating the ease of understanding and modifying the code can inform decisions about which approach to use.
Reusability: Considering how easily the functions or expressions can be reused in different contexts can influence choices.

Alternative Approaches:

Other ways to clamp numbers within a range might include:

Using bitwise operators (e.g., number & 0xFF to get the last byte of an integer)
Employing a simple arithmetic approach (e.g., Math.floor((number + max) / step) * step)
Utilizing a library or framework's built-in functions for number manipulation

However, these alternatives are not being tested in this specific benchmark.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark is comparing different ways to clamp numbers within a specified range using JavaScript.

**Options Being Compared:**

1. **Math.max/min**: Using the built-in `Math.max` and `Math.min` functions.
2. **Ternary Clamp Functions**: Three custom functions that perform similar operations:
	* `ternaryClamp(number, min, max)`: Returns the minimum of the number and the maximum value if it's outside the range.
	* `ternaryMin(number, min)`: Returns the smaller of the two values (number and minimum).
	* `ternaryMax(number, max)`: Returns the larger of the two values (number and maximum).
3. **Inline Ternary Expressions**: Two inline expressions that perform the same operations as the ternary clamp functions:
	* `number > max ? max : (number < min ? min : number)`
	* `number < min ? number: min`
	* `number > max ? number: max`

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Math.max/min**: Fast and efficient, but may not be as intuitive or flexible.
2. **Ternary Clamp Functions**:
	* Pros: More readable, flexible, and reusable code.
	* Cons: May have performance overhead due to function calls.
3. **Inline Ternary Expressions**:
	* Pros: Compact, fast, and efficient.
	* Cons: Less readable and less maintainable.

**Library Used:**

None explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the `Math.max` and `Math.min` functions are part of the JavaScript standard library.

**Special JS Features or Syntax:**

Not explicitly used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing different coding approaches rather than showcasing specific features.

**Other Considerations:**

* Performance: Measuring execution speed can help determine which approach is faster.
* Code Readability and Maintainability: Evaluating the ease of understanding and modifying the code can inform decisions about which approach to use.
* Reusability: Considering how easily the functions or expressions can be reused in different contexts can influence choices.

**Alternative Approaches:**

Other ways to clamp numbers within a range might include:

* Using bitwise operators (e.g., `number & 0xFF` to get the last byte of an integer)
* Employing a simple arithmetic approach (e.g., `Math.floor((number + max) / step) * step`)
* Utilizing a library or framework's built-in functions for number manipulation

However, these alternatives are not being tested in this specific benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Math.max/min vs function ternary vs inline ternary (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Math.min/max vs Math.min vs Math.max vs Ternary clamp vs Ternary min vs Ternary max vs Ternary clamp inlined vs Ternary min inlined vs Ternary max inlined

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Math.min/max

Math.min

Math.max

Ternary clamp

Ternary min

Ternary max

Ternary clamp inlined

Ternary min inlined

Ternary max inlined

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 7 months ago):