Benchmark: I vs J - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

IJ
let x = 0; for (var i=0; i < 1000; i++) { x += 2 + i; }
JI
let x = 0; for (var i=0; i < 1000; i++) { x = x + 2 + 1 }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
IJ
JI

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/53.0.2785.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 53 on Windows 8.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
IJ	412299.8 Ops/sec
JI	1225541.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this JavaScript benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two different approaches to incrementing a variable `x` in a loop. The test cases are:

1. "IJ" - increments `x` by 2 plus the current iteration index `i`
2. "JI" - updates `x` with the sum of its current value, 2, and 1 (without using the addition operator)

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches:

1. **IJ Approach**: increments `x` by 2 plus the current iteration index `i`
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and easy to understand
		+ May be optimized by JavaScript engines for simplicity
	* Cons:
		+ Potential for NaN (Not a Number) results if `i` is very large
		+ May not take advantage of arithmetic operations that can run in parallel
2. **JI Approach**: updates `x` with the sum of its current value, 2, and 1
	* Pros:
		+ Can avoid NaN issues by using a fixed value (1) instead of `i`
		+ May allow for better optimization by JavaScript engines due to the use of arithmetic operations that can run in parallel
	* Cons:
		+ More complex and harder to understand than the IJ approach
		+ May require more memory accesses if `x` needs to be stored temporarily

**Library Usage**

The benchmark does not use any libraries.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The tests are focused solely on the performance of the two incrementation approaches.

**Other Alternatives**

To improve the benchmark, additional alternatives could be explored, such as:

* Using a different data structure (e.g., arrays instead of integers)
* Adding noise to the input values to simulate real-world usage
* Using multiple threads or concurrent execution to compare the performance of parallelized code

However, these variations may not provide meaningful insights into the performance differences between the two incrementation approaches and may introduce additional complexity.

Related benchmarks:

I vs J (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: IJ vs JI

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

IJ

JI

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):