Benchmark: simple Math.max vs ternary

Script Preparation code:

var a = Math.round(Math.random()*1000),b = Math.round(Math.random()*1000),c;

Tests:

ternary
c = a>b?a:b;
Math.max
c = Math.max(a,b);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
ternary
Math.max

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
ternary	14806533.0 Ops/sec
Math.max	13949984.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: using a ternary operator (`c = a>b?a:b;`) versus using the `Math.max()` function (`c = Math.max(a,b);`).

**Options Compared**

* **Ternary Operator**: This approach uses a single expression to evaluate and assign a value to `c`. The syntax is `x ? y : z`, where `x` is evaluated as true or false, and `y` is executed if `x` is true, while `z` is executed if `x` is false.
* **Math.max()**: This approach uses the built-in `Math.max()` function to find the maximum value between `a` and `b`.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Ternary Operator**
	+ Pros:
		- Simple and concise syntax
		- Can be more readable for simple conditions
		- No additional library dependencies required
	+ Cons:
		- May not be as efficient due to the need to evaluate the condition
		- Can lead to longer execution times if the condition is complex or frequent
* **Math.max()**
	+ Pros:
		- More efficient, as it's implemented in native code and optimized for performance
		- Less prone to errors due to being a well-defined function
		- Supports more advanced comparison scenarios (e.g., finding the maximum of multiple values)
	+ Cons:
		- Requires importing the `Math` object or accessing its properties (`Math.max()`)
		- May have overhead due to function call and parameter passing

**Library: Math**

The `Math` library provides a set of mathematical functions, including `max()`. The `Math.max()` function takes one or more arguments and returns the largest value among them.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None mentioned in this benchmark.**

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is:
```javascript
var a = Math.round(Math.random()*1000), b = Math.round(Math.random()*1000);
```
This code generates two random integers `a` and `b`, which are used as input for the comparisons.

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case consists of a unique benchmark definition, which is executed to measure performance. In this case, there are only two test cases:

1. **Ternary**: Evaluates the ternary operator expression (`c = a>b?a:b;`)
2. **Math.max**: Evaluates the `Math.max()` function expression (`c = Math.max(a,b);`)

**Latest Benchmark Result**

The latest benchmark result shows that Chrome 129 on Windows Desktop achieved:

* Ternary: 2857204.25 executions per second
* Math.max: 2467943.75 executions per second

This suggests that the `Math.max()` approach is faster than the ternary operator approach in this specific test case.

**Other Alternatives**

For similar benchmarks, you might consider using other approaches or variations, such as:

* Using other comparison operators (e.g., `>=`, `<=`, etc.)
* Adding more complex logic to the comparisons
* Experimenting with different data distributions or input sizes
* Comparing performance on different browsers, devices, or platforms

Keep in mind that benchmark results can be highly dependent on specific use cases, hardware configurations, and optimization techniques.

Related benchmarks:

simple Math.max vs ternary (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: ternary vs Math.max

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

ternary

Math.max

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):