Benchmark: Math.min vs if/else vs ternary operator test 2

Script Preparation code:

this.numberA = Math.random() * 1000;
this.numberB = Math.random() * 1000;
this.numberC = Math.random() * 1000;

Tests:

Math.min
return Math.min(this.numberA, this.numberB, this.numberC);
if
if (this.numberA < this.numberB) { return this.numberA; }else{ if (this.numberB < this.numberC) { return this.numberB }else{ return this.numberC; } }
ternary
return (this.numberA < this.numberB) ? this.numberA : ( this.numberB < this.numberC?this.numberB:this.numberC)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.min
if
ternary

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.min	10539541.0 Ops/sec
if	1396300672.0 Ops/sec
ternary	1398929152.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The test compares three different ways to return the smaller of two numbers: `Math.min()`, an `if-else` statement, and a ternary operator. The script generates three random numbers (`numberA`, `numberB`, and `numberC`) using JavaScript code provided in the "Script Preparation Code" section.

**Test Case Options**

1. **Math.min()**: Uses the built-in `Math.min()` function to find the smallest of the three numbers.
	* Pros: Fast, widely supported, and easy to use.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for all edge cases or specific requirements (e.g., performance-critical code).
2. **if-else statement**: Manually checks each number against others using an `if` statement.
	* Pros: Customizable, can handle specific requirements or edge cases.
	* Cons: Generally slower and more complex than the other options.
3. **Ternary operator**: Uses a single expression with multiple conditions to return the smallest of the three numbers.
	* Pros: Concise, fast, and easy to read.
	* Cons: May not be as readable or maintainable for complex logic.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, no specific library is used beyond JavaScript's built-in `Math` functions. However, some browsers (like Chrome) may include additional libraries or extensions that could potentially affect performance.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None of the test cases explicitly use special JavaScript features like ES6 modules, async/await, or Promises. The focus is on comparing basic operation methods.

**Benchmark Result Interpretation**

The latest benchmark result shows:

* `Math.min()` has an average execution speed of approximately 1054 executions per second.
* The `if`-else statement averages around 13,649 executions per second.
* The ternary operator averages about 13989291.5 executions per second (which is significantly faster than the other two options).

**Other Alternatives**

In theory, you could use other methods to find the smallest of two numbers, such as:

* Using a recursive function
* Utilizing bitwise operations (e.g., comparing two values using `&` and `|`)
* Leveraging bitwise shifts or mask-based comparisons

However, these alternatives are likely to be slower, more complex, and less readable than the options tested in this benchmark.

In summary, this benchmark compares three fundamental approaches to finding the smallest of two numbers: a built-in function (`Math.min()`), an `if-else` statement, and a concise ternary operator. The results highlight the significant performance difference between these methods.

Related benchmarks:

Math.min vs if/else vs ternary operator test 2 (version: 0)

Quickest operation to return smaller of 2 numbers

Comparing performance of: Math.min vs if vs ternary

Created: 9 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.min

if

ternary

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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