Benchmark: Lanczos L function

Script Preparation code:

const { PI, sin } = Math;
const a = 3;

const sinc = x => sin(x) / x || 1;
window.L1 = x => sinc(x*=PI) * sinc(x/a);

window.L2 = x => x ? a * sin(x*=PI) * sin(x/a) / (x*x) : 1;

Tests:

L1
L1(Math.random());
L2
L2(Math.random());

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
L1
L2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into explaining the provided benchmark.

**What is tested on the provided JSON?**

The provided JSON represents two JavaScript microbenchmarks: Lanczos L function (`L1` and `L2`) and a simple script preparation code that defines these functions. The tests measure the execution performance of these two functions, specifically `L1(Math.random())` and `L2(Math.random())`.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two different approaches for calculating the Lanczos L function:

1. **Approach 1: `L1`**
	* Defined in the script preparation code as `window.L1 = x => sinc(x*=PI) * sinc(x/a);`
	* Uses a single multiplication and division operations.
2. **Approach 2: `L2`**
	* Defined in the script preparation code as `window.L2 = x => x ? a * sin(x*=PI) * sin(x/a) / (x*x) : 1;`
	* Uses additional multiplication, division, and conditional statements.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **`L1`**
	* Pros:
		+ Simpler expression with fewer operations.
	* Cons:
		+ May be less accurate or stable due to the use of `|| 1`, which can lead to unexpected behavior if `x` is zero.
2. **`L2`**
	* Pros:
		+ More accurate and stable, as it uses a more traditional Lanczos L function implementation.
	* Cons:
		+ More complex expression with additional operations.

**Library usage**

The benchmark does not explicitly use any libraries beyond the built-in `Math` library. However, it assumes that the `sin` function is available on the global scope.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The benchmark uses a special JavaScript feature called "arrow functions" (introduced in ECMAScript 2015). Arrow functions provide a concise way to define small, single-expression functions and are often used for simple utility functions. In this case, both `L1` and `L2` use arrow functions to define the Lanczos L function implementation.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to write an alternative implementation of the Lanczos L function in JavaScript, you might consider using:

* A traditional loop-based implementation instead of arrow functions.
* A different mathematical library or framework (e.g., NumJS) for numerical computations.
* A just-in-time (JIT) compiler like SpiderMonkey (used by Mozilla Firefox) to optimize performance.

**Benchmarking best practices**

To ensure accurate and reliable benchmark results, consider the following:

* Use a consistent set of test inputs and environments.
* Minimize external dependencies and assumptions.
* Avoid using complex or platform-dependent code.
* Optimize for the specific use case and performance characteristics.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/57.0.2987.133 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 57 on Windows 8.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
L1	3295397.8 Ops/sec
L2	3313253.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lanczos L function (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: L1 vs L2

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

L1

L2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):