Benchmark: arithm vs ternary

Tests:

division
const a = 23; const b = 234; const c = a / b;
ternary
const a = 23; const b = 234; const c = a < b ? 0.1 : 0.2;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
division
ternary

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two test cases: `arithm` and `ternary`. The "benchmark definition" is not explicitly provided, but based on the test cases, we can infer that it's a comparison between arithmetic operations (`a / b`) and conditional expressions with ternary operators (`a < b ? 0.1 : 0.2`).

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. Arithmetic operation: `const c = a / b;`
2. Ternary operator: `const c = a < b ? 0.1 : 0.2;`

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Arithmetic Operation**
	* Pros:
		+ Easier to understand and implement
		+ Less prone to errors due to simple syntax
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the division operation, which can be more expensive than a ternary operator
2. **Ternary Operator**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be faster since it's just a single instruction
		+ More concise and easier to read for simple conditional logic
	* Cons:
		+ May be more error-prone due to the complexity of conditional expressions
		+ Less intuitive for beginners or those without experience with ternary operators

**Other Considerations**

The choice between arithmetic operations and ternary operators ultimately depends on the specific requirements of the use case. If simplicity and readability are prioritized, an arithmetic operation might be a better choice. However, if performance is critical and code size needs to be minimized, a ternary operator could be more suitable.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's worth noting that libraries like `lodash` often provide `ternary()` functions that can simplify conditional expressions.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in these benchmarks. The code snippets are straightforward and use basic syntax elements.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to MeasureThat.net, consider the following:

1. **Benchmarking libraries**: Libraries like Benchmark.js or V8Benchmark provide more advanced benchmarking capabilities.
2. **Web performance testing tools**: Tools like WebPageTest or Lighthouse offer more comprehensive web performance testing and analysis capabilities.
3. **JavaScript engines**: If you're interested in optimizing JavaScript engine performance, consider using tools like Node.js's `--expose-gc` flag to benchmark garbage collection.

Keep in mind that MeasureThat.net is specifically designed for microbenchmarking JavaScript code, making it an excellent choice for comparing small snippets of code.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/109.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 109 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
division	903837376.0 Ops/sec
ternary	936255808.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

arithm vs ternary (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: division vs ternary

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

division

ternary

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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