Benchmark: 123123 - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

12313
var result = ''; for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) { var a = i % 3 === 0; var b = i % 5 === 0; if (a && b) { result = 'PheethBathh' continue; } if (a) { result = 'Pheeth' continue; } if (b) { result = 'Buzz' continue; } result = i; }
123132
var result = ''; for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) { if (i % 3 === 0 && i % 5 === 0) { result = 'PheethBathh' continue; } if (i % 3 === 0) { result = 'Pheeth' continue; } if (i % 5 === 0) { result = 'Buzz' continue; } result = i; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
12313
123132

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help explain the benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case. The goal of this test is to measure the execution performance of different variations of a simple loop that checks for specific conditions on two numbers, i.

**Options Compared**

There are three main variations of the loop:

1. **Version 1**: `var result = '';\r\n                for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) {\r\n\r\n                    var a = i % 3 === 0;\r\n                    var b = i % 5 === 0;\r\n                    if (a && b) {\r\n                        result = 'PheethBathh'\r\n                        continue;\r\n                    }\r\n                    if (a) {\r\n                        result = 'Pheeth'\r\n                        continue;\r\n                    }\r\n\r\n                    if (b) {\r\n                        result = 'Buzz'\r\n                        continue;\r\n                    }\r\n                    result = i;\r\n                }`
2. **Version 2**: The first line is removed, resulting in `var result = '';\r\n                for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) {\r\n                    if (i % 3 === 0 && i % 5 === 0) {\r\n                        result = 'PheethBathh'\r\n                        continue;\r\n                    }\r\n                    if (i % 3 === 0) {\r\n                        result = 'Pheeth'\r\n                        continue;\r\n                    }\r\n\r\n                    if (i % 5 === 0) {\r\n                        result = 'Buzz'\r\n                        continue;\r\n                    }\r\n                    result = i;\r\n                }`
3. **Version 2'**: There's a slight variation of Version 2, but it's not relevant to the benchmark.

**Pros and Cons**

The main differences between these versions are:

* In Version 1, the `&&` operator is used, which has higher precedence than `||`. This might affect the order of operations in some browsers.
* In Version 2, the `if (i % 3 === 0 && i % 5 === 0)` statement is moved outside the loop. This could potentially reduce the number of iterations inside the loop.
* However, there's no significant difference between these versions in terms of performance.

**Libraries Used**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases.

**Special JS Features**

The benchmark uses a few special JavaScript features:

* The `continue` statement is used to skip certain iterations of the loop.
* The `&&` and `||` logical operators are used to check conditions.

These features are standard in modern JavaScript and do not require any specific knowledge or libraries to understand.

**Other Alternatives**

To compare the performance of these versions, you could try:

* Using a different programming language (e.g., C++, Java)
* Using a virtual machine or just-in-time compiler (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey) to compile and run the code
* Adding more complex logic or optimizations to the loop
* Measuring the performance of the benchmark on different devices, operating systems, or networks

Note that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark definition and test cases.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:50.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/50.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 50 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
12313	2789793.5 Ops/sec
123132	2961970.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

123123 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 12313 vs 123132

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

12313

123132

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):