Benchmark: 12321asdsa - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var count = 100

Tests:

max
Math.max(0, count)
ternary
count > 0 ? count : 0

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
max
ternary

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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/110.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/96.0.0.0 (Edition Yx 05)

Browser/OS: Opera 96 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
max	12588484.0 Ops/sec
ternary	18426400.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the explanation into smaller sections to make it easier to understand.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition with the following elements:

* `Name`: A unique identifier for the benchmark (in this case, "12321asdsa").
* `Description`: An optional description of the benchmark, which is null in this case.
* `Script Preparation Code`: A JavaScript code snippet that is executed before running the actual benchmark. In this case, it sets a variable `count` to 100.
* `Html Preparation Code`: Another optional JavaScript code snippet that is executed before running the actual benchmark. It's null in this case.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two different approaches for evaluating an expression:

1. `Math.max(0, count)`: This approach uses the built-in `max` function from the Math library to find the maximum value between 0 and `count`.
2. `count > 0 ? count : 0`: This approach uses a ternary operator (also known as a conditional expression) to evaluate the condition. If `count` is greater than 0, it returns `count`, otherwise, it returns 0.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Math.max(0, count)**:
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward.
	* Cons: May have performance implications if the maximum function is not optimized for this specific case.
2. **count > 0 ? count : 0**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient than using `max` since it avoids an extra function call.
	* Cons: More complex syntax and may require additional processing power to evaluate.

**Library Used**

The `Math.max` function is a part of the JavaScript Math library. It's a built-in function that returns the maximum value between two numbers or multiple values.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. The expressions use standard JavaScript syntax and don't rely on any advanced features like async/await, generators, or classes.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to compare alternative approaches for evaluating the same expression, here are a few examples:

1. Using `if` statement: `if (count > 0) { return count; } else { return 0; }`
2. Using a custom implementation of the maximum function.
3. Using a different library or framework-specific implementation.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have their own pros and cons, depending on the specific use case and performance requirements.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided `Script Preparation Code` is executed before running the actual benchmark. In this case, it sets a variable `count` to 100, which is used as input for both benchmarks.

I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested in this benchmark!

Related benchmarks:

12321asdsa (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: max vs ternary

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

max

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):