Benchmark: sum 3,5 dividents

Script Preparation code:

 var input = 214;
  function bu (N) {
    var q = Math.floor(N/3),
      w = Math.floor(N/5),
      e = Math.floor(N/15),
  
      A = q * (q+1) * 3 / 2,
      B = w * (w+1) * 5 / 2,
      AB = e * (e+1) * 15 / 2;
  
    return A + B - AB;
  }
  
  function ku (N) {
    var n3 = 3,
      n5 = 5,
      sum = 0;
  
    for (var i = 0; n3 <= N; n3 += 3, n5 += 5 * (1 + i % 2), ++i) {
      sum += n3;
  
      if (n5 < N) {
        sum += n5;
      }
    }
  }

Tests:

bu
bu(input);
ku
ku(input);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
bu
ku

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'll break down the explanation into smaller sections.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark definition. It contains three main sections:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This section provides the code that is used to prepare the benchmark script. In this case, it defines two functions: `bu` and `ku`. The `bu` function calculates a specific mathematical expression, while the `ku` function also performs a similar calculation but with a different approach.

2. **Html Preparation Code**: This section is empty in the provided JSON, indicating that no HTML preparation code is needed for this benchmark.

3. **Benchmark Definition**: This section specifies the actual benchmark definition, which is either `"bu(input);"` or `"ku(input);"`. The `input` variable is set to a specific value (214) before running the benchmark.

**Options Compared**

The provided JSON compares two different approaches to calculate the same mathematical expression:

1. **`bu` function**: This approach uses floor division and arithmetic operations to calculate the result.
2. **`ku` function**: This approach uses a loop with incrementing divisors to calculate the result.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

* **`bu` function**:
	+ Pros: Simple, concise, and efficient use of arithmetic operations.
	+ Cons: May not be as flexible or adaptable as other approaches.
* **`ku` function**:
	+ Pros: More flexible and adaptable, can handle varying input values.
	+ Cons: More complex, may be slower due to the loop.

**Library and Its Purpose**

There is no explicitly mentioned library in the provided JSON. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines or browsers might have optimized implementations of mathematical functions (e.g., `Math.floor()`, `Math.max()`) that could potentially affect benchmark results.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark definition. The code is straightforward and uses standard JavaScript operators and data types.

**Other Alternatives**

Some possible alternative approaches to compare with the provided JSON include:

1. **Using bitwise operations**: Instead of using floor division, you could use bitwise operations (e.g., `>>> 0`) to achieve similar results.
2. **Using a recursive function**: You could rewrite the `bu` and `ku` functions as recursive functions to explore alternative execution paths.
3. **Using parallel processing**: If available, you could leverage parallel processing capabilities (e.g., web workers) to compare the performance of each approach in a multi-threaded environment.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternatives depends on your specific goals, constraints, and requirements for the benchmark.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/56.0.2924.87 YaBrowser/17.3.1.840 Yowser/2.5 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Yandex Browser 17 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
bu	903181.0 Ops/sec
ku	1809783.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

sum 3,5 dividents (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: bu vs ku

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

bu

ku

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):