Benchmark: Compare GCD_ - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function gcd(a, b){
  var divisor = 2, 
      greatestDivisor = 1;

  if (a < 2 || b < 2)
     return 1;
  
  while(a >= divisor && b >= divisor){
   if(a %divisor == 0 && b% divisor ==0){
      greatestDivisor = divisor;      
    }
   divisor++;
  }
  return greatestDivisor;
}

function gcd1(a,b){
    var divisor = a < b ? a : b;  	
    
    if(a < 2 || b < 2){
        return 1;
    }
    
    while(divisor > 0){
        if(a % divisor === 0 && b % divisor === 0){
            return divisor;
        }
        divisor--;
    }
}

function gcd2(a, b){
    var x;
    
    while(b !== 0){
        x = a % b;
        a = b;
        b = x;
    }
    
    return a;
}

function gcd3(a, b){
    if(b === 0)
        return a;
    return gcd3(b, a % b);
}

Tests:

Bottom Up
gcd(27, 12);
Top Down
gcd1(27, 12);
Good non-recursion
gcd2(27, 12);
Good Recusion
gcd3(27, 12);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Bottom Up
Top Down
Good non-recursion
Good Recusion

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll provide an explanation of the benchmark and its various components.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case named "Compare GCD". The benchmark aims to compare the execution performance of four different implementations of the Greatest Common Divisor (GCD) algorithm: `gcd`, `gcd1`, `gcd2`, and `gcd3`.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code provides the implementation details for each GCD algorithm:

*   `gcd(a, b)`: This is a simple iterative approach that uses a while loop to find the greatest common divisor.
*   `gcd1(a,b)`: This is a top-down recursive approach that first finds the maximum of `a` and `b`, then iteratively checks for divisibility.
*   `gcd2(a, b)`: This algorithm uses the Euclidean algorithm with a twist. It repeatedly applies the modulo operation to find the GCD without using recursion.
*   `gcd3(a, b)`: This is another recursive approach that uses function calls to recursively calculate the GCD.

**Html Preparation Code**

The `Html Preparation Code` field is empty in this case, indicating that no HTML code is required for the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

The provided JSON contains four test cases, each representing a different implementation of the GCD algorithm:

*   `Bottom Up`: This test case uses the `gcd(a, b)` function.
*   `Top Down`: This test case uses the `gcd1(a,b)` function.
*   `Good non-recursion`: This test case uses the `gcd2(a, b)` function, which is considered a good approach as it avoids recursion and is more efficient.
*   `Good Recursion`: This test case uses the `gcd3(a, b)` function, which is another recursive approach.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show the execution performance of each test case on a Chrome 101 browser running on Linux. The `ExecutionsPerSecond` field provides the number of executions per second for each test case:

*   `Good non-recursion`: 8205014.5
*   `Top Down`: 6678458.0
*   `Bottom Up`: 6485160.0
*   `Good Recursion`: 2823265.5

**Library and Special Features**

None of the provided test cases use any external libraries, but they do utilize JavaScript features like recursion (`gcd1`, `gcd3`) or iterative approaches with a twist (`gcd2`).

**Alternatives**

For those interested in exploring alternative GCD algorithms or improving upon these implementations, some options include:

*   Using a more efficient algorithm like the Binary GCD algorithm.
*   Implementing a hybrid approach combining elements of different methods (e.g., using recursion for smaller inputs and iteration for larger ones).
*   Leveraging libraries or frameworks that provide optimized GCD functions.

These alternatives might offer improved performance, readability, or maintainability, depending on the specific use case.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/101.0.4951.64 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 101 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Bottom Up	6485160.0 Ops/sec
Top Down	6678458.0 Ops/sec
Good non-recursion	8205014.5 Ops/sec
Good Recusion	2823265.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Compare GCD_ (version: 0)

Compare GCD

Comparing performance of: Bottom Up vs Top Down vs Good non-recursion vs Good Recusion

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Bottom Up

Top Down

Good non-recursion

Good Recusion

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):