Benchmark: pow vs for-loop - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

pow
var tmp = Math.pow(6, 21);
for-loop
var tmp = 0; for(var i = 0; i < 21; i++) { tmp *= 6; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pow
for-loop

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 break down the provided JSON data for MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of mathematical operations using `Math.pow` versus a traditional for-loop.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is represented by the "Benchmark Definition" field in each individual test case. There are two test cases:

1. `var tmp = Math.pow(6, 21);`: This test case uses the exponentiation operator (`Math.pow`) to calculate the result of raising 6 to the power of 21.
2. `var tmp = 0; for(var i = 0; i < 21; i++) { tmp *= 6; }`: This test case uses a traditional for-loop to calculate the same result.

**Comparison**

The two approaches differ in their implementation:

* The `Math.pow` method is a built-in JavaScript function that calculates the power of a number. It is likely implemented using a more efficient algorithm under the hood, which can reduce overhead and improve performance.
* The traditional for-loop approach, on the other hand, uses a manual loop to iterate 21 times, multiplying the result by 6 each time.

**Pros and Cons**

**Math.pow**

Pros:

* Likely implemented in native code or using a more efficient algorithm
* Reduces overhead and improves performance

Cons:

* May not be as intuitive or familiar to developers who are not experienced with exponentiation operators
* Can be less flexible than traditional for-loop approaches

**Traditional For-Loop**

Pros:

* More intuitive and familiar to developers, especially those without experience with exponentiation operators
* Can be more flexible in terms of implementing custom logic within the loop

Cons:

* May have higher overhead due to the manual loop and multiplication operations
* Can lead to performance differences depending on the specific implementation and hardware.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in these benchmark test cases. However, MeasureThat.net likely uses a JavaScript engine that provides various built-in functions and optimizations under the hood, which can affect the results of the benchmarks.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

Neither of the provided test cases utilizes any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is described above. The `Math.pow` method is a standard built-in function in JavaScript, while the traditional for-loop approach is a common programming pattern.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to this benchmark could include:

* Using other libraries or frameworks that provide optimized mathematical operations (e.g., NumJS, Math.js)
* Implementing the exponentiation operator using bitwise operations (a technique often used in low-level programming languages)
* Comparing performance using different data types (e.g., floating-point vs integer arithmetic)

It's worth noting that MeasureThat.net likely uses a combination of these alternatives to provide comprehensive and meaningful benchmark results.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
pow	21889804.0 Ops/sec
for-loop	127503384.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

pow vs for-loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: pow vs for-loop

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

pow

for-loop

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):