Benchmark: square - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var x=5;

Tests:

multiply
x*x
pow
Math.pow(x,2)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
multiply
pow

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by a JSON object with the following properties:

* `Name`: "square"
* `Description`: null (no description or context)
* `Script Preparation Code`: "var x=5;" (sets up a variable `x` to 5 before running the benchmark)
* `Html Preparation Code`: null (no HTML setup is required)

This benchmark has no specific purpose, but it seems to be focused on testing some basic arithmetic operations.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **multiply**: Tests the multiplication operation `x*x` with the prepared variable `x=5`.
2. **pow**: Tests the exponentiation operation `Math.pow(x,2)` using the same prepared variable `x=5`.

These test cases seem to be testing the performance of basic arithmetic operations.

**Library Usage**

None of the provided code uses a specific JavaScript library, but it does use the built-in `Math` object for the exponentiation operation (`Math.pow(x,2)`).

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code is straightforward and follows standard JavaScript conventions.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark appears to be comparing two approaches:

1. **Manual Multiplication**: `x*x` (no library or built-in function is used)
2. **Exponentiation using Math.pow**: `Math.pow(x,2)` (uses the built-in exponentiation function)

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

* **Manual Multiplication (`x*x`)**:
	+ Pros: Simple, no dependency on external libraries or functions
	+ Cons: May be slower due to manual implementation
* **Exponentiation using Math.pow**: 
	+ Pros: Faster and more efficient, as it leverages built-in optimization
	+ Cons: Requires the `Math.pow` function, which might not be available in all environments

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark does not account for factors like:

* Function call overhead (e.g., `x*x` vs. `Math.pow(x,2)`)
* Variable lookup time (e.g., accessing `x` directly vs. through the scope chain)
* Loop or iteration optimizations

Keep in mind that this is a simplified benchmark and real-world scenarios might involve additional complexities.

**Alternative Benchmarks**

There are several alternative approaches to testing basic arithmetic operations:

1. **Fibonacci sequence**: Instead of multiplication, you could test the performance of generating the Fibonacci sequence.
2. **Geometric transformations**: You could test the performance of applying geometric transformations (e.g., scaling, rotating) to a set of points or images.
3. **Randomized inputs**: You could test the performance of various arithmetic operations with randomized input values.

These alternative benchmarks can help you explore different aspects of performance and optimization in JavaScript applications.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/51.0.2704.106 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 51 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
multiply	2828991.2 Ops/sec
pow	1695347.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

square (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: multiply vs pow

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

multiply

pow

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):