Benchmark: math.pow vs multiply

Tests:

Math.pow
var distance = Math.pow(12-6,2) + Math.pow(57-32, 2) + Math.pow(86-12,2)
power
var distance = (12-6)*(12-6) + (57-32)*(57-32) + (86-12)*(86-12)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.pow
power

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using `Math.pow` and using the multiplication operator (`*`) to calculate the square of a number, in this case, calculating the distance between coordinates (12, 6), (57, 32), and (86, 12).

**Approaches Compared**

The two approaches being compared are:

1. **Using `Math.pow`**: This method uses the built-in `pow()` function to calculate the square of a number.
2. **Using multiplication operator (`*`)**: This approach multiplies each coordinate by itself to calculate its square.

**Pros and Cons**

**Using `Math.pow`**

Pros:

* Concise and readable code
* Built-in function for exponentiation, reducing boilerplate code

Cons:

* May incur a small overhead due to the presence of a built-in function
* Could potentially be optimized further by the JavaScript engine or interpreter

**Using multiplication operator (`*`)**

Pros:

* Efficient and straightforward implementation
* Avoids potential overhead of a built-in function

Cons:

* Code may appear more verbose and less readable, especially for complex calculations
* May require additional checks to ensure correct operation (e.g., avoiding NaN values)

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, the `Math` library is used, which provides various mathematical functions, including `pow()`. The `Math.pow()` function takes two arguments: the base and the exponent. In this case, it's used to calculate the square of a number.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's commonly available in modern JavaScript implementations.

**Other Alternatives**

Alternative approaches for calculating squares could include:

* Using bit shifting (e.g., `x * x` using bitwise operations)
* Using modular arithmetic (e.g., `(a + b) % 2 == 0` to check if a number is even)
* Implementing custom exponentiation algorithms, such as the "exponentiation by squaring" method

These alternatives might offer trade-offs in terms of readability, performance, and complexity.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code` fields are empty, indicating that no additional setup or preparation is required for this benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.pow	3682262.2 Ops/sec
power	110124800.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

math.pow vs multiply (version: 0)

math.pow vs multiply

Comparing performance of: Math.pow vs power

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.pow

power

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):