Benchmark: Int Math.max compare v2

Script Preparation code:

var strA = "1688805315905";
var strB = "1688805315906";
var intA = 1688805315905;
var intB = 1688805315906;

Tests:

noParse
var res = Math.max(strB, strA, 100);
~~
var res = Math.max(~~strB, ~~strA, 100);
int
var res = Math.max(intA, intB, 100);
int&str
var res = Math.max(intA, strB, 100);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
noParse
~~
int
int&str

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/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
noParse	1535391.4 Ops/sec
~~	1578910.8 Ops/sec
int	2741190.2 Ops/sec
int&str	1934624.0 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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, along with the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of JavaScript's `Math.max` function under various scenarios, specifically comparing integers, strings, and a mix of both.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code sets up two variables:

* `strA` and `strB`: two string literals with values "1688805315905" and "1688805315906", respectively.
* `intA` and `intB`: two integer literals with the same values as `strA` and `strB`, respectively.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that the benchmark doesn't involve any complex DOM manipulation or event handling.

**Test Cases**

The test cases are defined in the "Individual test cases" section. Each test case has a unique name and a corresponding benchmark definition. The benchmark definitions vary in how they call `Math.max`:

1. **noParse**: Calls `Math.max(strB, strA, 100)` without parsing the strings.
2. **~**: Uses the bitwise NOT operator (`~~`) to convert the strings to integers before calling `Math.max(~~strB, ~~strA, 100)`.
3. **int**: Calls `Math.max(intA, intB, 100)` directly using integer literals.
4. **int&str**: Calls `Math.max(intA, strB, 100)` with a mix of an integer and a string.

**Library Used**

None of the test cases explicitly use any JavaScript libraries or frameworks. However, the use of the bitwise NOT operator (`~~`) in the "~~" test case is a common pattern in some older browsers or environments to coerce strings to integers.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The "~~" test case uses the bitwise NOT operator, which is not a standard JavaScript feature but rather a non-standard extension used by some older browsers to convert strings to integers. This syntax is specific to Internet Explorer and some other older versions of Chrome.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **noParse**: Fastest approach, as it avoids any additional parsing or conversion steps.
	* Pros: Minimal overhead, quick execution time.
	* Cons: May not work correctly in all browsers or environments that don't support the `Math.max` function with multiple arguments.
2. **~**: Uses a non-standard extension to convert strings to integers, which may not work consistently across browsers and versions.
	* Pros: Can provide better performance than `noParse`, as it avoids the overhead of string parsing.
	* Cons: May cause issues in older browsers or environments that don't support this syntax.
3. **int**: Calls `Math.max` with integer literals, which is a standard JavaScript approach.
	* Pros: Well-supported across modern browsers and versions.
	* Cons: May be slower than the other two approaches due to the overhead of calling `Math.max`.
4. **int&str**: Calls `Math.max` with an integer and a string, which may not work correctly in all cases.
	* Pros: Can provide better performance than `noParse` or `~`, as it avoids unnecessary string parsing.
	* Cons: May cause issues if the order of arguments is not correct.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to optimize the performance of `Math.max`, you can also consider using:

* **Array methods**: Instead of calling `Math.max`, you can use array methods like `Math.max.apply()` or `Array.prototype.max()`.
* **Native implementations**: Some browsers and versions provide native implementations of `Math.max` that are optimized for performance.
* **Custom implementations**: If you have control over the implementation, you can write a custom `Math.max` function using a different approach, such as using bitwise operations or SIMD instructions.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be compatible with all browsers or versions.

Related benchmarks:

Int Math.max compare v2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: noParse vs ~~ vs int vs int&str

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

noParse

~~

int

int&str

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):