Benchmark: Finite vs Multiples Only

Script Preparation code:

var limit = 10;
var total = 0;

Tests:

Finite - Test all numbers within limit
for (var i = 0; i < limit; i++) { if (i % 3 === 0 || i % 5 == 0) { total += i; } } console.log(total);
Multiples Only
console.log(total);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Finite - Test all numbers within limit
Multiples Only

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 explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, where users can create and run tests to compare different approaches. The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of two test cases: "Finite" (testing all numbers within a limit) and "Multiples Only" (testing only multiples of 3 or 5).

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Finite**: This approach iterates over all numbers within the specified limit (`var limit = 10;`) and checks if each number is divisible by either 3 or 5 using the modulo operator (`i % 3 === 0 || i % 5 == 0`). If the condition is true, the number is added to a running total (`total += i;`).
2. **Multiples Only**: This approach simply prints the running total at the end without any loop or conditional checks.

**Pros and Cons**

**Finite:**

Pros:

* More comprehensive testing of numbers within the limit
* May be more representative of real-world scenarios where all numbers are considered

Cons:

* Slower execution due to loop overhead and conditional checks
* May introduce unnecessary iterations for some cases (e.g., when `limit` is small)

**Multiples Only:**

Pros:

* Faster execution due to minimal overhead and no loop or conditional checks
* More efficient for testing only multiples of 3 or 5

Cons:

* Less comprehensive testing, as only specific numbers are considered
* May not be representative of real-world scenarios where all numbers are considered

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's worth noting that some libraries might provide optimized implementations for the modulo operator or other mathematical functions used in the benchmark.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses a feature called "var hoisting" (also known as variable declarations) to declare variables `limit` and `total`. In JavaScript, declared variables are moved to the top of their scope if they are not reassigned before use. This is done by adding the script preparation code (`var limit = 10; var total = 0;`) before the test cases.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to rewrite this benchmark using a different approach, here are some alternatives:

* Use a loop with `for...of` or `for...in` instead of traditional `for` loops.
* Utilize Array.prototype.reduce() or other aggregation functions to simplify the iteration process.
* Leverage modern JavaScript features like async/await, Promises, or Web Workers for more efficient execution.

However, it's essential to keep in mind that rewriting a benchmark should focus on optimizing performance and readability rather than introducing unnecessary complexity.

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/78.0.3904.97 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 78 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Finite - Test all numbers within limit	30818.6 Ops/sec
Multiples Only	43990.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Finite vs Multiples Only (version: 0)

I'm a dog with a bone.

Comparing performance of: Finite - Test all numbers within limit vs Multiples Only

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Finite - Test all numbers within limit

Multiples Only

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):