Benchmark: Math.max() vs for..if

Script Preparation code:

var viewList = [];
var randomIds = [ 279, 272, 402, 180, 152, 418, 18, 27, 351, 3 ]

for (var i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
  viewList.push({ value: {viewId: randomIds[i]}});
}

Tests:

Math.max()
return Math.max(...viewList.map(view => view.value.viewId));
for..if
var largestId = 0; for (var view of viewList) { if (view.value.viewId > largestId) { largestId = view.value.viewId; } } return largestId;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.max()
for..if

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

Browser/OS: Chrome 110 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.max()	4915017.5 Ops/sec
for..if	15127446.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches for finding the maximum value in an array: using the `Math.max()` function and using a traditional `for` loop with conditional statements (`if`).

**Options Compared**

There are two options compared:

1. **`Math.max()`**: This method uses the Array.prototype.max() or Math.max() function to find the largest element in an array.
2. **Traditional `for` loop with `if`**: This approach uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the elements of the array and keeps track of the maximum value found so far.

**Pros and Cons**

**`Math.max()`**:

Pros:

* More concise and expressive code
* Less prone to errors due to its built-in behavior

Cons:

* May have additional overhead due to function call and possible bounds checking
* Not suitable for custom implementation or when specific optimization is required

**Traditional `for` loop with `if`**:

Pros:

* More control over the implementation, allowing for potential optimizations
* Does not rely on external functions or built-in methods

Cons:

* More verbose and error-prone code
* Requires manual handling of edge cases (e.g., empty arrays)

**Other Considerations**

Both approaches have trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability.

The choice between `Math.max()` and a traditional `for` loop with `if` ultimately depends on the specific use case, personal preference, and requirements. If performance is critical, the traditional approach may be preferred for its customizability. However, if concise and expressive code is more important, `Math.max()` is likely a better choice.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, no external library is used besides JavaScript itself. The `Math.max()` function is part of the standard JavaScript API.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special features or syntax mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. However, if you're interested, I can explain more about some advanced JavaScript concepts that might be relevant to this kind of optimization task.

**Other Alternatives**

If you'd like to explore alternative approaches for finding the maximum value in an array, here are a few examples:

* Using `reduce()` method: `array.reduce((max, current) => max > current ? max : current)`
* Using `Every()` and `some()` methods with callback functions
* Implementing a custom binary search algorithm

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability compared to the traditional `for` loop or `Math.max()` approaches.

If you'd like me to explain any of these alternative approaches in more detail, feel free to ask!

Related benchmarks:

Math.max() vs for..if (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.max() vs for..if

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.max()

for..if

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):