Benchmark: Deci binary partitioning

Script Preparation code:

const length = 9999;
var input = "";

for (let i = 0; i <= length; i +=1) {
	input += Math.floor(Math.random()*10);
}

Tests:

Math.max
(n => Math.max(...n))(input)
For...of
(function(n) { let min = 1; for (digit of n.split('')) { if (digit === 9) { return 9; } if (digit > min) { min = digit; } } return min; })(input)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.max
For...of

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/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.max	4532.5 Ops/sec
For...of	405.5 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 explanation into smaller sections to make it easier to understand.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark named "Deci binary partitioning". It defines a benchmark that consists of two test cases:

1. `Math.max`
2. `For...of`

The script preparation code generates a random string of length 9999, which is used as input for both test cases.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared in this benchmark:

1. **`Math.max`**: This option uses the built-in `Math.max()` function to find the maximum value in the input array.
2. **`For...of`**: This option uses a traditional `for` loop with an iterative approach to find the minimum digit in the input string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`Math.max`**
	* Pros:
		+ Shorter code (only one line)
		+ Faster execution time due to built-in function optimization
	* Cons:
		+ May not be suitable for very large input arrays, as it can lead to memory issues
		+ Can be less readable than traditional `for` loops
2. **`For...of`**
	* Pros:
		+ More readable and maintainable code
		+ Suitable for large input arrays without performance issues
	* Cons:
		+ Longer code (multiple lines)
		+ May not be optimized as well as built-in functions

**Library Usage**

None of the provided test cases use a JavaScript library.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark. The tests only rely on standard JavaScript constructs.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options:

1. **`Array.prototype.reduce()`**: This method can be used to find the maximum value in an array, similar to `Math.max()`. However, it may not be as performant due to the overhead of the reduction function.
2. **`String.prototype.forEach()` and `String.prototype.indexOf()`**: These methods can be used to iterate over the characters in a string and find the minimum digit. However, this approach may not be suitable for very large input strings.

Keep in mind that each alternative has its own trade-offs and potential performance implications.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark better!

Related benchmarks:

Deci binary partitioning (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.max vs For...of

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.max

For...of

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):