Benchmark: Math min simple vs ternary greater than

Tests:

Math min simple
const x = 10; const z = Math.min(x, 5);
ternary greater than
const x = 10; const z = x > 5 ? 5: x;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math min simple
ternary greater than

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net!

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. In this case, we have a benchmark with two test cases: "Math min simple" and "ternary greater than". Let's break down what's being tested and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Test Case 1: Math min simple**

The benchmark definition for this test case is:
```javascript
const x = 10;
const z = Math.min(x, 5);
```
This code uses the built-in `Math.min()` function to find the minimum value between two numbers. The pros of using `Math.min()` include:

* It's a widely supported and well-documented function.
* It's likely to be optimized by most JavaScript engines.

However, there are some potential drawbacks:

* If the input values are very large or very small, `Math.min()` might not perform as efficiently as other approaches.
* Some older browsers might have issues with this function due to limitations in their arithmetic capabilities.

**Test Case 2: ternary greater than**

The benchmark definition for this test case is:
```javascript
const x = 10;
const z = x > 5 ? 5 : x;
```
This code uses a ternary operator (also known as a conditional expression) to evaluate whether `x` is greater than 5. If it is, the value `5` is returned; otherwise, the original value of `x` is used.

Pros of using a ternary operator:

* It's a concise and expressive way to write simple conditionals.
* Some JavaScript engines might optimize this code for better performance.

However, there are some potential drawbacks:

* The use of a ternary operator can make the code slightly less readable than using `Math.min()`.
* This approach relies on the JavaScript engine's ability to evaluate the conditional expression quickly enough. If it can't, the test may not be accurate.

**Library usage**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in these benchmark definitions. However, if a library were used, it might provide additional functionality or optimizations for certain types of mathematical operations.

**Special JS features/syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in these benchmark definitions. The code uses only standard JavaScript constructs and built-in functions like `Math.min()`.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to write a similar benchmark, you could consider using other approaches, such as:

* Using a library like NumJS or Mathjs for numerical computations.
* Implementing your own minima finding algorithm from scratch.
* Using a different data structure, like an array or object, to store and manipulate the values.

Some examples of alternative implementations might look like this:
```javascript
// Using NumJS
const x = 10;
const z = njs.min(x, 5);

// Implementing your own minima finding algorithm
function findMin(a, b) {
    if (a < b) return a;
    return b;
}
const z = findMin(10, 5);

// Using an array to store and manipulate values
let arr = [10, 5];
arr.sort((a, b) => a - b);
const z = arr[0];
```
Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as efficient or accurate as the original code, and they may require additional setup or configuration.

In conclusion, MeasureThat.net allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks, providing insights into the performance of different approaches. By understanding the pros and cons of each method, developers can make informed decisions about how to optimize their code for better performance.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/103.0.5060.134 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 103 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math min simple	10637195.0 Ops/sec
ternary greater than	1103289344.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Math min simple vs ternary greater than (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math min simple vs ternary greater than

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math min simple

ternary greater than

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):