Benchmark: inline vs function call vs function call x2 vs function call x3

Script Preparation code:

function add(a, b){
	return a + b
}
function addRef(a, b){
	return add(a, b)
}
function addRef2(a, b){
	return addRef(a, b)
}

Tests:

inline
10+20
function call
add(10, 20)
function call x2
addRef(10, 20)
function call x3
addRef2(10, 20)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
inline
function call
function call x2
function call x3

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test suite created on the MeasureThat.net website. The test compares different approaches to executing a simple arithmetic expression: `10 + 20`. This benchmark is used to evaluate the performance of various execution methods, including inline functions and function calls.

**Test Cases**

There are four individual test cases:

1. **Inline**: The arithmetic expression `10 + 20` is executed directly within the code.
2. **Function Call (add)**: A separate function named `add` is defined to perform the arithmetic operation.
3. **Function Call with Reference (addRef)**: Another function named `addRef` is defined, which calls the `add` function and returns its result.
4. **Function Call with Referral (addRef2)**: A third function named `addRef2` is defined, which calls the `addRef` function and returns its result.

**Library and Special Features**

None of the test cases use any external libraries or special JavaScript features other than basic arithmetic operations.

**Execution Methods Compared**

The benchmark compares four execution methods:

1. **Inline**: The arithmetic expression is executed directly within the code.
2. **Function Call (add)**: A separate function named `add` is defined to perform the arithmetic operation.
3. **Function Call with Reference (addRef)**: Another function named `addRef` is defined, which calls the `add` function and returns its result.
4. **Function Call with Referral (addRef2)**: A third function named `addRef2` is defined, which calls the `addRef` function and returns its result.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

1. **Inline**: Advantages:
	* Direct access to the arithmetic expression.
	* Potential for better performance due to reduced function call overhead.
	Disadvantages:
	* Code cluttered with unnecessary function calls.
2. **Function Call (add)**: Advantages:
	* Easier maintenance and reusability of code.
	* Reduces code clutter.
Disadvantages:
	* Additional function call overhead may reduce performance.
3. **Function Call with Reference (addRef)**: Advantages:
	* Similar benefits to `add` method, with an additional layer of indirection.
Disadvantages:
	* Increased function call overhead compared to inline or `add` methods.
4. **Function Call with Referral (addRef2)**: Advantages:
	* Additional layer of indirection provides a clear separation of concerns.
Disadvantages:
	* Highest function call overhead among the four approaches.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to modify this benchmark, you could consider adding more test cases to cover other arithmetic expressions or variations on these execution methods. Some possible alternatives include:

1. **Caching**: Implementing caching mechanisms for repeated evaluations of the same expression.
2. **Memoization**: Using memoization techniques to store and reuse results of expensive function calls.
3. **Parallel Execution**: Running multiple instances of each test case in parallel to evaluate performance under load.

These additional test cases would help identify the performance benefits or drawbacks of implementing caching, memoization, or parallel execution in a real-world scenario.

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/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
inline	1538547072.0 Ops/sec
function call	13947398.0 Ops/sec
function call x2	7176428.0 Ops/sec
function call x3	4429218.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

inline vs function call vs function call x2 vs function call x3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: inline vs function call vs function call x2 vs function call x3

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

inline

function call

function call x2

function call x3

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):