Benchmark: Math.max/min vs if vs ternary operator with random 2

Tests:

Math.max/min
return Math.max(250, Math.min(750, Math.random() * 1000));
if
var number = Math.random() * 1000; if(number < 250) return 250; if(number > 750) return 750; return number;
ternary
var number = Math.random() * 1000; return number < 250 ? 250 : (number > 750 ? 750 : number);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.max/min
if
ternary

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares three approaches to achieve the same result: `Math.max`, `Math.min`, and conditional statements (`if` or ternary operator). The test generates random numbers between 0 and 1000, which are used to determine the output values for each approach.

**Approaches Compared**

1. **Math.max/min**: This approach uses built-in JavaScript functions `Math.max` and `Math.min` to find the maximum or minimum value of two numbers.
2. **if**: This approach uses a conditional statement (`if`) to compare the generated random number with two thresholds (250 and 750) and returns one of the threshold values if the condition is met, otherwise it returns the original number.
3. **ternary operator**: This approach uses the ternary operator (`?:`) to concisely express the same logic as the `if` statement, but in a single expression.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Math.max/min**:
	* Pros: Fast, concise, and readable code.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for situations where only one of two values is needed (e.g., finding the nearest even number).
2. **if**:
	* Pros: Easy to understand, flexible, and can be used in a variety of scenarios.
	* Cons: Can be slower than other approaches due to the overhead of function calls and conditional checks.
3. **ternary operator**:
	* Pros: Compact, readable, and efficient code.
	* Cons: May not be immediately clear to everyone, especially for those without experience with ternary operators.

**Libraries and Special Features**

There are no libraries used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some modern JavaScript implementations, like V8 (used by Google Chrome), use various optimizations and heuristics to improve performance, which might not be reflected in this benchmark.

**Special JS Feature: Arrow Functions**

The ternary operator (`ternary`) uses an arrow function (`() => { expression }`), which is a shorthand way of defining small functions. While not explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition, arrow functions are used in the implementation.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to explore other approaches or alternatives, here are some ideas:

* Using `Math.abs` and bitwise operations to find the maximum value between two numbers.
* Employing a lookup table for fast comparisons (e.g., using an array of threshold values).
* Utilizing SIMD instructions (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) if available on your target platform.

These alternatives might offer better performance or more concise code, but their implementation and understanding may be more complex.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/71.0.3578.98 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 71 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.max/min	1736006.9 Ops/sec
if	4749667.0 Ops/sec
ternary	4759137.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Math.max/min vs if vs ternary operator with random 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.max/min vs if vs ternary

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.max/min

if

ternary

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):