Benchmark: fastest clamp - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

operators
const clamp = (t, min, max) => t < min ? min : t > max ? max : t; let s = 0; for (let i=0; i<1000; i++) s += clamp(i, -1, 1);
math
const clamp = (t, min, max) => Math.min(max, Math.max(min, t)); let s = 0; for (let i=0; i<1000; i++) s += clamp(i, -1, 1);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
operators
math

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 break down the benchmark and analyze what's being tested.

The provided JSON represents two test cases for measuring the performance of JavaScript microbenchmarks on different approaches to implementing the `clamp` function, which limits a value to a specified range.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The benchmark definition is a JavaScript code snippet that defines the `clamp` function in two ways:

1. Using simple comparison operators (`<`, `>`):
```javascript
const clamp = (t, min, max) => t < min ? min : t > max ? max : t;
```
2. Using the `Math.min` and `Math.max` functions:
```javascript
const clamp = (t, min, max) => Math.min(max, Math.max(min, t));
```
The benchmark prepares a script that sets up a variable `s` to accumulate the results of repeatedly calling the `clamp` function with different inputs.

**Test Cases:**
There are two test cases:

1. **"operators"`**: This test case uses the simple comparison operator approach.
2. **"math"`**: This test case uses the `Math.min` and `Math.max` functions approach.

**Options Compared:**

* Using simple comparison operators (`<`, `>`) versus using the `Math.min` and `Math.max` functions.
* The pros of each approach are:
	+ Simple comparison operator approach:
		- Easier to understand and implement.
		- Possibly faster due to fewer function calls.
	+ `Math.min` and `Math.max` functions approach:
		- More concise and expressive code.
		- Likely to be more efficient due to the optimized implementation of these functions.
* The cons of each approach are:
	+ Simple comparison operator approach:
		- May be slower due to the overhead of repeated function calls.
		- Less readable code.
	+ `Math.min` and `Math.max` functions approach:
		- More complex code that may be harder to understand for some readers.

**Library Used:**
None.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**
None mentioned.

Now, let's discuss the alternative approaches:

1. **Using ternary operators**: This approach would use a single expression with multiple conditions, like this:
```javascript
const clamp = (t, min, max) => t < min ? max : t > max ? min : t;
```
This approach is similar to the simple comparison operator approach but uses a more concise syntax.
2. **Using bitwise operators**: This approach would use bitwise operations to implement the `clamp` function, like this:
```javascript
const clamp = (t, min, max) => t < min ? min | 0 : t > max ? max | 0 : t;
```
This approach is likely to be slower than using simple comparison operators or `Math.min` and `Math.max` functions.
3. **Using a dedicated clipping library**: This approach would use an existing library that provides optimized clipping functions, like this:
```javascript
const clamp = require('clipping');
const s = 0;
for (let i=0; i<1000; i++) s += clamp(i, -1, 1);
```
This approach would likely be faster than using the simple comparison operator or `Math.min` and `Math.max` functions approaches, but may add dependency on an external library.

Note that these alternative approaches are not necessarily better or worse than the original approaches; they are just different ways to implement the `clamp` function.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:130.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/130.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 130 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
operators	178434.6 Ops/sec
math	163804.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

fastest clamp (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: operators vs math

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

operators

math

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):