Benchmark: math pow vs multiply vs double asterix

Tests:

pow
var x = Math.pow(54,2);
mult
var y = 54*54
double asterix
var z = 54**2

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pow
mult
double asterix

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case that compares three different ways to calculate the square of a number: using `Math.pow()`, multiplication (`*`), and exponentiation with double asterisks (`**`). The test measures which approach yields the best performance results in terms of executions per second.

**Options compared**

1. **`Math.pow()`**: This function calculates the power of a number, taking two arguments.
2. **Multiplication (`*`)**: This operator performs multiplication between two numbers.
3. **Exponentiation with double asterisks (`**`)**: This syntax is used to raise a number to a power.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **`Math.pow()`**:
	* Pros: Generally efficient, accurate, and well-supported across different browsers.
	* Cons: May have overhead due to function calls, which can slow down performance-critical code.
2. **Multiplication (`*`)**:
	* Pros: Fast and lightweight, as it only performs a simple multiplication operation.
	* Cons: Can lead to overflow errors if the result exceeds the maximum integer value, and may not be well-supported across all browsers.
3. **Exponentiation with double asterisks (`**`)**:
	* Pros: Efficient and readable syntax, widely supported in modern browsers.
	* Cons: May require careful handling of edge cases, such as zero or negative exponents.

**Library usage**

None of the test cases explicitly uses any external libraries.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

The `**` exponentiation operator is a relatively new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2018 (ES2018). It allows for concise and expressive exponentiation, but may not be supported in older browsers or environments.

Other alternatives to consider:

* **Using a dedicated power function**: Instead of relying on `Math.pow()`, you could create your own power function using multiplication or the binary exponentiation algorithm.
* **Caching results**: If the result of the calculation is not sensitive to timing, caching the intermediate results can avoid repeated calculations and improve performance.

Keep in mind that for most use cases, the differences between these approaches will be negligible. However, when dealing with high-performance or embedded systems where every cycle counts, optimizing this particular microbenchmark can make a significant difference.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/110.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 110 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
pow	2244586240.0 Ops/sec
mult	2245442048.0 Ops/sec
double asterix	2239450368.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

math pow vs multiply vs double asterix (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: pow vs mult vs double asterix

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

pow

mult

double asterix

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):