Benchmark: benchmark pow - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

pow small number
Math.pow(2,6)
pow larger number
Math.pow(2,120)
pow large number
Math.pow(2,2000)
pow very large number
Math.pow(2,3700000)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pow small number
pow larger number
pow large number
pow very large number

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is crucial for creating efficient code and ensuring scalability. Let's dive into the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON represents a simple benchmark with the following characteristics:

* The benchmark is named "benchmark pow".
* It doesn't have a description.
* There's no script preparation code or HTML preparation code, which means that the JavaScript engine will execute the benchmark without any additional setup or rendering of HTML.

**Individual Test Cases**

The test cases are defined as an array of objects, each representing a specific scenario:

1. `pow small number`: This test case uses the `Math.pow` function with a relatively small exponent (6).
2. `pow larger number`: This test case uses the `Math.pow` function with a larger exponent (120).
3. `pow large number`: This test case uses the `Math.pow` function with an even larger exponent (2000).
4. `pow very large number`: This test case uses the `Math.pow` function with an extremely large exponent (3700000).

**Comparison of Options**

The primary options being compared in these tests are the performance differences between executing smaller exponents of 2 using `Math.pow`. The main factors affecting performance are:

* **Exponent size**: Larger exponents require more computations, leading to slower execution times.
* **JavaScript engine optimization**: Different JavaScript engines may optimize certain operations differently, affecting performance.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Smaller exponent** (e.g., 6):
	+ Pros: Faster execution time due to fewer computations required.
	+ Cons: May not accurately represent real-world usage scenarios where larger exponents are more common.
* **Larger exponent** (e.g., 120):
	+ Pros: More representative of real-world usage, as larger exponents are often encountered in mathematical and scientific applications.
	+ Cons: Slower execution time due to increased computations required.
* **Very large exponent** (e.g., 3700000):
	+ Pros: Demonstrates performance degradation at extreme scales, which is essential for identifying optimization opportunities.
	+ Cons: Extremely slow execution times, making it challenging to achieve reliable results.

**Library and Purpose**

None of the test cases explicitly use a library or external dependency. The `Math.pow` function is a built-in JavaScript method used for exponentiation.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in these benchmarks, as they focus solely on the performance comparison of smaller exponents.

**Other Alternatives**

To create similar benchmarks, you could consider using other popular JavaScript engines like SpiderMonkey (for Firefox), V8 (for Chrome), or SquirrelFish (for Safari). Additionally, you can explore more complex benchmark scenarios, such as:

* **Mathematical operations**: Compare the performance of different mathematical functions, like `Math.sin`, `Math.cos`, or `Math.exp`.
* **Loops and iteration**: Measure the performance differences between various loop structures, such as `while` loops, `for` loops, or `forEach` loops.
* **Object creation and manipulation**: Benchmark the creation and modification of objects, including arrays, sets, and maps.

Keep in mind that creating a comprehensive benchmark suite requires careful consideration of various factors, including the JavaScript engine, hardware platform, and system configuration.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/125.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 125 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
pow small number	15431872.0 Ops/sec
pow larger number	15465777.0 Ops/sec
pow large number	15431969.0 Ops/sec
pow very large number	15443023.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

benchmark pow (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: pow small number vs pow larger number vs pow large number vs pow very large number

Created: 6 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

pow small number

pow larger number

pow large number

pow very large number

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):