Benchmark: divide and conquer

Tests:

divide
65536 / 2
Conquer
65536 << 1
Divide and divide
65536 / 4
Conquer and conquer
65536 << 2

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
divide
Conquer
Divide and divide
Conquer and conquer

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 break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

The provided JSON represents a microbenchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, which allows users to create and run JavaScript benchmarks. The test case is designed to measure the performance of different approaches for performing division operations using bitwise shift operators.

Here are the options compared:

1. **Simple Division (`65536 / 2`)**: This option performs a straightforward division operation using the `/` operator.
2. **Bitwise Right Shift (`65536 << 1`)**: Instead of dividing, this option uses the left shift operator (`<<`) to multiply the number by 2, effectively achieving the same result as simple division.
3. **Double Division and Conquer (`65536 / 4`)**: This option first divides the number by 2 using bitwise right shift (similar to option 1), and then again by 2, effectively dividing the original number by 4.
4. **Conquer with Bitwise Shift (`65536 << 2`)**: Similar to option 3, this option uses double bitwise left shift to multiply the number by 4, achieving a similar result.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. Simple Division:
	* Pros: Easy to understand and implement.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to division operations.
2. Bitwise Right Shift (Conquer):
	* Pros: Generally faster than division operations because it's an arithmetic operation on the binary representation of the number.
	* Cons: Requires understanding of bitwise shift operators.
3. Double Division and Conquer:
	* Pros: Combines the benefits of simple division with the speed of bitwise operations, but may be less efficient due to the extra operation.
	* Cons: More complex than simple division or bitwise right shift.
4. Conquer with Bitwise Shift (Double Conquer):
	* Pros: Similar benefits as double division and conquer, but potentially more efficient due to the use of double bitwise left shift.
	* Cons: May be harder to understand due to the double operation.

**Library usage:** None

The benchmark does not appear to rely on any JavaScript libraries beyond the standard library. The operations are performed using built-in operators like `/`, `<<`.

**Special JS feature or syntax:** None mentioned

There's no mention of special JavaScript features or syntax in the provided benchmark code or test cases.

**Other alternatives:**

If you wanted to write your own microbenchmark, you could explore alternative approaches like:

1. Using assembly language for the operations (e.g., x86 or ARM).
2. Implementing custom bitwise shift operators using the `Uint32Array` and ` DataView` APIs.
3. Utilizing specialized libraries like `big-integer` or `decimal.js` for high-performance arithmetic.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely require a deeper understanding of low-level programming and might not be necessary unless you're working with extremely performance-critical code.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/113.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 113 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
divide	592552704.0 Ops/sec
Conquer	581186944.0 Ops/sec
Divide and divide	575457664.0 Ops/sec
Conquer and conquer	588207936.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

divide and conquer (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: divide vs Conquer vs Divide and divide vs Conquer and conquer

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

divide

Conquer

Divide and divide

Conquer and conquer

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):