Benchmark: stack test recursion

Tests:

recursion return recursion
x = function (n){ n++; if (n < 10000){return x(n);}; } x(0);
recursion return null
x = function (n){ n++; if (n < 10000){x(n); return null;}; } x(0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
recursion return recursion
recursion return null

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.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark tests two different approaches to recursive function calls in JavaScript:

1. **Recursive return with value**: The first test case, "recursion return recursion", tests a recursive function that returns a value. In this case, the function increments the input `n` and checks if it's less than 10,000. If so, it calls itself recursively with `n+1`. Finally, it returns the value of the call.
2. **Recursive return with null**: The second test case, "recursion return null", tests a recursive function that also increments the input `n` and checks if it's less than 10,000. However, instead of returning the result, it calls itself recursively with `n+1` and returns `null`.

**Comparison of options**

There are two main approaches being compared:

* **Value return**: This approach involves calling the recursive function and waiting for its result. In this case, both test cases use this approach.
* **Early exit**: The first test case uses early exit by returning immediately after incrementing `n` if it's less than 10,000. This can potentially speed up the execution of the recursive calls.

**Pros and cons**

* **Value return**:
	+ Pros: Easy to understand and implement, avoids potential issues with null or undefined returns.
	+ Cons: Can lead to increased stack sizes and slower performance due to repeated function calls.
* **Early exit**:
	+ Pros: Potentially faster execution by avoiding unnecessary recursive calls.
	+ Cons: Requires careful consideration of the base case to avoid infinite recursion.

**Library usage**

None of the provided benchmark test cases use any external libraries. However, MeasureThat.net itself is a JavaScript library that provides the benchmarking functionality.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in these two test cases. The focus is on the recursive function implementation and its optimization.

**Other alternatives**

Other approaches to optimizing recursive functions might include:

* **Memoization**: Storing and reusing previously computed results to avoid redundant calculations.
* **Tail recursion**: Optimizing recursive calls by avoiding the need for a stack frame.
* **Iterative implementations**: Converting recursive functions to iterative ones using loops instead of recursive calls.

Keep in mind that each approach has its own trade-offs, and the best choice depends on the specific use case and performance requirements.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/53.0.2785.143 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 53 on Mac OS X 10.11.3

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
recursion return recursion	428.4 Ops/sec
recursion return null	434.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

stack test recursion (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: recursion return recursion vs recursion return null

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

recursion return recursion

recursion return null

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):