Benchmark: Math.max vs. if vs. ternary FIXED

Script Preparation code:

this.number = Math.random() * 1000;

Tests:

Math.max
return Math.max(this.number, 500)
If
if (this.number < 500) { return 500; } return this.number;
Ternary
return this.number < 500 ? 500 : this.number;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.max
If
Ternary

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 the provided benchmark JSON and explain what is being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark defines three test cases:

1. `Math.max`
2. `If` (using an if statement)
3. `Ternary` (using a ternary operator)

All tests are designed to find the fastest way to compare two numbers: `this.number` and 500.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is set to generate a random number between 0 and 1000, stored in the `this.number` variable.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided.

**Test Cases**

Each test case has a unique benchmark definition:

1. **Math.max**: Uses the built-in `Math.max` function to compare `this.number` with 500.
2. **If**: Uses an if statement to check if `this.number` is less than 500, and returns 500 or `this.number` accordingly.
3. **Ternary**: Uses a ternary operator to return either 500 or `this.number`, depending on the condition.

**Library**

None of the test cases use any external libraries.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The test cases do not use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, Promises, or modern ES6+ features like arrow functions or destructuring. However, it's worth noting that older browsers might behave differently when using `this.number` (e.g., due to the "strict mode" behavior).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief summary:

1. **Math.max**:
	* Pros: Built-in function, likely optimized by the browser.
	* Cons: Might not be as flexible or performant for certain use cases.
2. **If**:
	* Pros: More control over flow and logic, potentially more readable.
	* Cons: Requires a conditional statement, which might add overhead.
3. **Ternary**:
	* Pros: Concise and expressive syntax, potentially faster due to single expression evaluation.
	* Cons: Might be less readable for complex conditions, and some older browsers might not optimize it well.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to include additional test cases or variations:

1. **Using a switch statement**: Instead of an if-else chain, you could use a `switch` statement to make the condition more explicit.
2. **Using a different comparison operator**: You could also try using other comparison operators like `>=`, `<=`, or even bitwise comparisons (e.g., `this.number > 500 ? ... : ...`) to see how they affect performance.
3. **Adding more complex conditions**: You could introduce additional complexity by including multiple conditions in the if statement or ternary operator.

Keep in mind that this benchmark is designed to test specific use cases, so it's essential to understand what you're trying to measure and optimize for (e.g., execution speed, memory usage, readability).

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/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.max	11941183.0 Ops/sec
If	1049911040.0 Ops/sec
Ternary	1052721024.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Math.max vs. if vs. ternary FIXED (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.max vs If vs Ternary

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.max

If

Ternary

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):