Benchmark: Leetcode Pow vs Math.pow syntax

Tests:

My Pow
function myPow(x, n) { function calc_power(x, n) { if (x === 0) { return 0; } if (n === 0) { return 1; } let res = calc_power(x, Math.floor(n / 2)); res = res * res; if (n % 2 === 1) { return res * x; } return res; } let ans = calc_power(x, Math.abs(n)); if (n >= 0) { return ans; } return 1 / ans; } myPow(2, 3) myPow(5, 0) myPow(7, 1) myPow(-3, 4) myPow(-2, 3) myPow(0, 5) myPow(0, 0) myPow(0, -2) myPow(1, 100) myPow(10, 2) myPow(0.5, 10) myPow(-2, 10) myPow(2, -3) myPow(1.5, 2) myPow(-3, -2) myPow(99, 100000000000)
Math.Pow
Math.pow(2, 3) Math.pow(5, 0) Math.pow(7, 1) Math.pow(-3, 4) Math.pow(-2, 3) Math.pow(0, 5) Math.pow(0, 0) Math.pow(1, 100) Math.pow(10, 2) Math.pow(0.5, 10) Math.pow(-2, 10) Math.pow(2, -3) Math.pow(1.5, 2) Math.pow(-3, -2) Math.pow(99, 100000000000)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
My Pow
Math.Pow

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches to calculate the power of a number in JavaScript:

1. **Custom implementation**: A recursive function `myPow` that manually calculates the power using the exponentiation by squaring method.
2. **Built-in Math.pow syntax**: The built-in `Math.pow` function, which is a part of the ECMAScript standard.

**Comparison of options**

Both approaches have their pros and cons:

* **Custom implementation (My Pow)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Can be optimized for specific use cases or edge cases.
		- Allows for more control over the calculation process.
	+ Cons:
		- Typically slower than built-in functions due to overhead from parsing and executing custom code.
		- May have additional memory usage due to recursive function calls.
* **Built-in Math.pow syntax (Math.Pow)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Very fast execution, as it's a built-in function optimized for performance.
		- Minimal memory usage, as it relies on the browser's native implementation.
	+ Cons:
		- Less control over the calculation process, as it follows the ECMAScript standard.
		- May not handle edge cases or special use cases as effectively.

**Other considerations**

* **Library usage**: Neither of these approaches uses a third-party library. However, if you were to add libraries like NumJS or Mathjs for mathematical operations, it could impact performance and complexity.
* **Special JS features or syntax**: The benchmark does not include any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require additional explanation.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The provided Benchmark Definition JSON does not contain script preparation code. This means the custom implementation `myPow` is already written in the benchmark definition, and it's up to the test users to implement this function in their environment.

**Alternative approaches**

If you wanted to add alternative approaches to this benchmark, some options could include:

* **Arrow functions**: Using arrow functions (`x => x ** n`) for both `My Pow` and `Math.Pow`.
* **Loop-based exponentiation**: Implementing a loop-based approach using a `for` loop or `while` loop instead of recursion.
* **Specialized libraries**: Using specialized libraries like NumJS or Mathjs for mathematical operations, which could provide optimized implementations for certain use cases.

These alternative approaches would require additional benchmarking to determine their performance characteristics and compare them to the original custom implementation and built-in `Math.pow` function.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
My Pow	63011.0 Ops/sec
Math.Pow	534498.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Leetcode Pow vs Math.pow syntax (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: My Pow vs Math.Pow

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

My Pow

Math.Pow

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):