Benchmark: normal vs e number

HTML Preparation code:

<!--your preparation HTML code goes here-->

Tests:

normal
for (let i = 40000; i--;) 100000000000000000000 ** 3
e
for (let i = 40000; i--;) 1e20 ** 3

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
normal
e

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 19 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; CrOS x86_64 14541.0.0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Chrome OS 14541.0.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
normal	30371.1 Ops/sec
e	30468.7 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 18 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark compares two approaches to representing a large number in JavaScript when performing arithmetic calculations. Both methods focus on raising a very large number to the power of three, but they differ in how the large number is represented.

### Options Compared

1. **Normal Representation**:
   - **Benchmark Definition**: `for (let i = 40000; i--;) 100000000000000000000 ** 3`
   - **Test Name**: "normal"
   - This test uses a standard decimal notation for a very large number (100 quintillion).

2. **Exponential Representation**:
   - **Benchmark Definition**: `for (let i = 40000; i--;) 1e20 ** 3`
   - **Test Name**: "e"
   - In this test, the same large number is expressed using exponential notation (1e20), which in scientific terms is 1 followed by 20 zeros.

### Pros and Cons

#### Normal Representation (`normal`)
- **Pros**:
  - Easier to read in some contexts, especially for those who are accustomed to viewing large numbers in standard form.
- **Cons**:
  - Can lead to performance issues, as the JavaScript engine may have to parse and handle the number differently due to its size.
  - Depending on the engine's optimization strategies, this may not be as efficient as the exponential representation.

#### Exponential Representation (`e`)
- **Pros**:
  - More concise and often faster for the JavaScript engine to parse, especially for very large or very small numbers.
  - The exponential representation is a standard way of expressing large numbers in programming and can lead to better optimization by the engine, reducing computation time.
- **Cons**:
  - Can be less intuitive for those unfamiliar with scientific notation or for those who prefer to see the full number.
  
### Other Considerations
- **Performance metrics**: The benchmark results indicate that the exponential approach (`e`) achieved an execution rate of **30,468.70 executions per second**, while the normal representation recorded **30,371.11 executions per second**. This slight difference showcases how number representation can affect performance.
- **JS Feature Usage**: The tests utilize basic arithmetic operations and demonstrate supported syntax for exponentiation across various JavaScript engines. The case does not employ any special syntactical features beyond standard JavaScript, keeping it straightforward and aligned with common practices.

### Alternatives
- **Using Libraries**: For scenarios requiring extreme precision beyond what JavaScript's built-in number type can provide (due to its representation limits), libraries such as **BigInt** or **Decimal.js** might be considered. BigInt allows the handling of large integers, while Decimal.js offers arbitrary-precision decimal arithmetic.
- **Performance Optimization Techniques**: Beyond representation methods, developers can optimize performance by parallelizing computations, leveraging WebAssembly for heavy mathematical tasks, or using modern JavaScript features that optimize operations at runtime.

In summary, representing large numbers in JavaScript can significantly impact performance; thus, choosing between normal notation and exponential notation is a matter of understanding the trade-offs between readability and computational efficiency.

Related benchmarks:

normal vs e number (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: normal vs e

Created: 19 days ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

normal

e

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 18 days ago):