Benchmark: multiply integer

Tests:

multiply by bitwise
let a = 2; a << 1;
multiply by * operator
let b = 2; b * 2;
99999 multiply by bitwise
let c = 99999; c << 1;
99999 multiply by * operator
let d = 99999; d * 2;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
multiply by bitwise
multiply by * operator
99999 multiply by bitwise
99999 multiply by * operator

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 15_4_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/15.4 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 15 on iOS 15.4.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
multiply by bitwise	455075776.0 Ops/sec
multiply by * operator	454875584.0 Ops/sec
99999 multiply by bitwise	417379072.0 Ops/sec
99999 multiply by * operator	502228992.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance can be a complex task, but I'll break it down for you.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON defines a benchmark for measuring the performance of multiplying integers in JavaScript. The "Script Preparation Code" field is empty, which means that no code needs to be executed before running the benchmark. However, there are two different approaches to multiplication: using the bitwise shift operator (`<<`) and the `*` operator.

**Approaches**

1. **Multiply by Bitwise Shift Operator (Bitwise)**:
```javascript
let a = 2;
a << 1;
```
This approach uses the bitwise left shift operator, which shifts the bits of the number to the left by one position, effectively multiplying it by 2.

Pros:

* Often faster than using the `*` operator due to fewer CPU instructions.
* Can be more efficient for large numbers.

Cons:

* Less readable and less intuitive for developers familiar with arithmetic operators.
* May not work as expected if used on non-integer values.

2. **Multiply by * Operator**:
```javascript
let b = 2;
b * 2;
```
This approach uses the `*` operator to perform multiplication.

Pros:

* More readable and intuitive for developers familiar with arithmetic operators.
* Works correctly for both integers and non-integer values.

Cons:

* May be slower than the bitwise shift operator due to additional CPU instructions.

**Library Usage**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON. However, some benchmarks may use external libraries for tasks like DOM manipulation or networking.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is required for basic arithmetic operations.

**Other Alternatives**

For measuring JavaScript performance, other alternatives exist:

1. **BenchmarkDotNet**: A popular benchmarking library for .NET and Node.js.
2. **V8 Benchmark Suite**: A set of benchmarks for the V8 JavaScript engine used in Chrome and Google Apps Script.
3. **jsPerf**: A benchmarking tool specifically designed for measuring JavaScript performance.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different syntax, configuration options, and results compared to Measuring That.net.

In conclusion, Measuring That.net provides a simple way to measure the performance of multiplying integers using both bitwise shift and arithmetic operators. The choice between these approaches depends on readability, maintainability, and performance considerations specific to your project.

Related benchmarks:

multiply integer (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: multiply by bitwise vs multiply by * operator vs 99999 multiply by bitwise vs 99999 multiply by * operator

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

multiply by bitwise

multiply by * operator

99999 multiply by bitwise

99999 multiply by * operator

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):