Benchmark: testing - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

s1
var x = true; var a = 54; var b = 14; if(x){ for(m=0;m<1000;m+=2){ var z = a+m*b; }; for(m=1;m<1000;m+=2){ var z = -a-m*b; }; } else { for(m=0;m<1000;m++){ var z = a+m*b; }; };
s2
var x = 2; var a = 54; var b = 14; for(m=0;m<1000;m++){ var z = (-(m%x*2-1)*a)+(-(m%x*2-1)*m)*b };

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
s1
s2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that contains information about the test case. In this case, it's a simple JavaScript script that performs some arithmetic operations.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared in this benchmark:

1. **If-else statement with nested loops**: The first test case uses an if-else statement to determine which block of code to execute based on the value of `x`. Inside each branch, there are two nested loops that calculate `z` using different arithmetic operations.
2. **For loop with expression**: The second test case uses a single for loop that calculates `z` using a complex expression involving modulo and multiplication.

**Pros and Cons**

Both approaches have their trade-offs:

* **If-else statement with nested loops**:
	+ Pros: Can be optimized by the JavaScript engine, especially if `x` is a constant or has a small range of values.
	+ Cons: The overhead of branch prediction and conditional execution can lead to slower performance.
* **For loop with expression**: This approach is more concise and may lead to better optimization by the JavaScript engine due to the elimination of branching.

**Library**

There are no libraries mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's likely that a JavaScript runtime environment (like V8 for Chrome) or a browser is being used to execute the script.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses some advanced JavaScript features, such as:

* **Modulo operator (`%`)**: Used in the expression `m%x*2-1`.
* **Expression statements**: The entire loop body can be expressed as a single statement, which may lead to better optimization.
* **For loop with an iteration variable (`m`)**: This is a more concise way of iterating over a range of values.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark uses a relatively simple script that performs arithmetic operations. However, it's likely designed to test the performance of the JavaScript engine or browser in handling loops and conditional statements.

To get the most out of this benchmark, you may want to consider the following:

* **Experiment with different input sizes**: The current benchmark only tests the script with a fixed range of values (0-999). You could try increasing the range to see how performance changes.
* **Check for optimization settings**: Some browsers or JavaScript engines offer optimization settings that can affect the performance of loops and conditional statements. You might want to experiment with different settings to see if they improve performance.

**Alternatives**

There are several alternatives you could use to create a benchmark similar to MeasureThat.net:

1. **Benchmarking libraries**: There are many specialized benchmarking libraries available for JavaScript, such as Benchmark.js or js-benchmark.
2. **Web assembly**: You can write your benchmark in WebAssembly (WASM) and run it in a sandboxed environment, which can help isolate performance differences.
3. **Multi-threaded or parallel execution**: If you're interested in testing multi-threaded or parallel execution, you could use a framework like Node.js clusters or parallel-benchmarking libraries.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might offer more features and control over the benchmarking process than MeasureThat.net.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/62.0.3202.75 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 62 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
s1	554.6 Ops/sec
s2	369.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

testing (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: s1 vs s2

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

s1

s2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):