Benchmark: x.y Math.max compare

Script Preparation code:

var strA = "1688.81";
var strB = "1688.82";
var intA = 1688.81;
var intB = 1688.82;

Tests:

noParse
var res = Math.max(strB, strA, 100);
~~
var res = Math.max(strB*1, strA*1, 100);
int
var res = Math.max(intA, intB, 100);
int&str
var res = Math.max(intA, strB*1, 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	1307185.8 Ops/sec
~~	959274.3 Ops/sec
int	1550812.8 Ops/sec
int&str	1339127.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of the JavaScript `Math.max` function in different scenarios, comparing various types of inputs: numbers (both integer and float), strings, and a mix of both. The goal is to determine which approach yields the best performance.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines two variables:

1. `strA`: an uninitialized string literal containing the value `"1688.81"`.
2. `strB`: another string literal with the value `"1688.82"`.

It also defines two integer variables:

1. `intA`: initialized to `1688.81`, which is a float number.
2. `intB`: initialized to `1688.82`, also a float number.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, so the benchmark will use a minimalistic setup for testing purposes.

**Test Cases**

The test cases compare different approaches to passing values to the `Math.max` function:

1. **noParse**: No parsing or coercion of inputs are performed.
2. **~~**: String coercion using the bitwise NOT operator (~) is applied to string literals before passing them to `Math.max`.
3. **int**: Integer numbers are used as inputs for `Math.max`.
4. **int&str**: A mix of integer and string values are passed to `Math.max`, where a string literal is coerced to an integer using the bitwise NOT operator (~) before being compared.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

1. **noParse**: Simplest and most straightforward method, but may incur additional overhead due to unnecessary parsing or coercion.
2. **~~**: Coerces string literals to integers using the bitwise NOT operator (~), which can lead to performance benefits since JavaScript can optimize integer comparisons more effectively than string comparisons. However, this approach may introduce unexpected behavior for non-numeric inputs.
3. **int**: Directly uses integer numbers, which is a straightforward and efficient way to pass values to `Math.max`. No overhead or coercion is incurred.
4. **int&str**: Combines the benefits of integers (efficient) with string literals (convenient), but introduces additional complexity due to the coercion step.

**Libraries**

There are no external libraries used in this benchmark, so we won't discuss any specific library usage.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The `~~` operator is a special JavaScript feature that coerces its operand to an integer. It's not a widely used feature, but it can be useful for certain use cases where numeric coercion is necessary.

In summary, the benchmark compares different approaches to passing values to the `Math.max` function in JavaScript, including no parsing or coercion (`noParse`), string coercion using the bitwise NOT operator (~) (`~~`), and direct integer usage (`int`). The choice of approach depends on the specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

x.y Math.max compare (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):