Benchmark: Function invocation for plain calculations

Script Preparation code:

var getDelta = (a, b) => a-b || 0

Tests:

Function invocation
getDelta(3, 2)
Plain with fallback
3-2 || 0
Plain without fallback
3 - 2

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Function invocation
Plain with fallback
Plain without fallback

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Function invocation	31970966.0 Ops/sec
Plain with fallback	972656512.0 Ops/sec
Plain without fallback	916548032.0 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 JSON and explain what is being tested, compared, and considered in the benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests various approaches to perform a simple calculation: `getDelta(3, 2)`. This function calculates the difference between two numbers, returning either the actual difference or 0 if one of the inputs is NaN (Not a Number).

**Script Preparation Code**
```javascript
var getDelta = (a, b) => a-b || 0;
```
This code defines a simple JavaScript function `getDelta` that takes two arguments `a` and `b`. The function returns the difference between `a` and `b`, using the OR operator (`||`) to provide a fallback value of 0 if either `a` or `b` is NaN.

**Html Preparation Code**
There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that this benchmark only tests the JavaScript execution performance without considering any HTML-related overhead.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of three test cases:

1. **Function invocation**: Tests calling the `getDelta` function directly.
```javascript
getDelta(3, 2)
```
2. **Plain with fallback**: Tests using the OR operator (`||`) to provide a fallback value for NaN inputs.
```javascript
3-2 || 0
```
3. **Plain without fallback**: Tests omitting the OR operator and relying on the JavaScript interpreter to handle NaN values correctly.
```javascript
3 - 2
```
**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches:

* Function invocation: calls the `getDelta` function directly, which incurs overhead due to function lookup and execution.
* Plain with fallback: uses the OR operator (`||`) to provide a simple fallback value, reducing the overhead compared to direct function calls.
* Plain without fallback: relies on the JavaScript interpreter to handle NaN values correctly, potentially resulting in more optimal bytecode generation.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Function invocation**: Pros: allows for fine-grained control over calculation logic. Cons: incurs higher overhead due to function lookup and execution.
* **Plain with fallback**: Pros: reduces overhead by using a simple OR operator to provide a fallback value. Cons: may not be suitable for all use cases where NaN handling is critical.
* **Plain without fallback**: Pros: leverages JavaScript's built-in NaN handling, potentially resulting in more optimal bytecode generation. Cons: requires careful consideration of edge cases and NaN propagation.

**Library**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, the `getDelta` function uses a simple arithmetic expression with OR operator (`||`) to handle NaN values.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for testing JavaScript performance benchmarks include:

* Using a different mathematical library (e.g., Math.js) that provides optimized implementations of arithmetic operations.
* Incorporating other input types, such as large numbers or complex expressions, to test the benchmark's handling of those cases.
* Adding more test cases to cover edge cases, such as NaN propagation, integer overflows, or precision issues.

Keep in mind that this is a simplified example, and real-world benchmarks may require additional considerations, such as:

* Input validation and sanitization
* Error handling and propagation
* Browser-specific quirks and optimizations

Related benchmarks:

Function invocation for plain calculations (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Function invocation vs Plain with fallback vs Plain without fallback

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Function invocation

Plain with fallback

Plain without fallback

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):