Benchmark: Powers of two - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

2x for charcode-48
var j = "MSKU947765"; var s = 0; var r = [1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512]; for (var e=0;e<4;e++) { var c = j.charCodeAt(e)-55; s+=(Math.floor(c/10.2)+c)*r[e]; }; for (var f=0;f<6;f++){ s+=(j.charCodeAt(e)-48)*r[e]; }; var d = s % 11 % 10; return d;
mm
var j = "MSKU947765"; var s = 0; var r = [1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512]; for (var e=0;e<4;e++) { var c = j.charCodeAt(e)-55; s+=(Math.floor(c/10.2)+c)*r[e]; }; for (var e=4;e<10;e++){ s+=(j.charCodeAt(e)-48)*r[e]; }; var d = s % 11 % 10; return d;
oo
var j = "MSKU947765"; var sum = 0; for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) { var m = j.charCodeAt(i); if (i < 4) { m -= 55; m += parseInt(m / 11); } else { m -= 48; } sum += m * Math.pow(2, i); } var d = sum % 11; if (d === 10) d = 0; return d;
mathfloor
var x = Math.floor(16/10.2)
parseint
var x = parseInt(16 / 11)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
2x for charcode-48
mm
oo
mathfloor
parseint

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is called "Powers of two" and it measures the performance of different approaches to perform arithmetic operations on a string. The description states that it tests whether to store intermediate results in an array or calculate them inside the loop.

**Script Preparation Code**

There is no script preparation code provided, which means that the test cases are intended to be executed from scratch with each run.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is also no html preparation code provided, which suggests that the benchmark is not dependent on any HTML elements or layout.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are four test cases:

1. **2x for charcode-48**: This test case uses a loop to iterate over the first 4 characters of the string and calculates the sum using two iterations. The variable `e` is used as the index, but it's not defined in this scope.
2. **mm**: Similar to the previous test case, but with a different indexing variable `e`. Again, `e` is not defined in this scope.
3. **oo**: This test case uses a loop to iterate over all 10 characters of the string and calculates the sum using a conditional statement that checks if the index is less than 4. The variable `i` is used as the index.
4. **mathfloor** and **parseint**: These are two standalone test cases that measure the performance of the built-in JavaScript functions `Math.floor()` and `parseInt()`, respectively.

**Library Usage**

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

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The use of `var` with a single assignment (`var j = "MSKU947765";`) is a older syntax, which has been largely replaced by `const` and `let`. The use of `Math.floor()` and `parseInt()` is standard JavaScript syntax.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

Without seeing the actual code, it's difficult to provide specific pros and cons. However, we can make some general observations:

* Storing intermediate results in an array (`2x for charcode-48` and `mm`) might lead to slower performance due to the overhead of array operations.
* Calculating intermediate results inside the loop (`oo`) could be faster if the compiler optimizes away the unnecessary calculations.
* Using built-in functions like `Math.floor()` and `parseInt()` is likely to be faster than implementing similar logic manually.

**Other Alternatives**

Other alternatives for calculating powers of two could include:

* Using a more efficient algorithm, such as bit manipulation
* Using a precomputed lookup table
* Using a different data structure, such as a binary tree

The choice of approach would depend on the specific requirements and constraints of the benchmark.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:53.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/53.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 53 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
2x for charcode-48	20438232.0 Ops/sec
mm	17003264.0 Ops/sec
oo	3646204.0 Ops/sec
mathfloor	227775056.0 Ops/sec
parseint	37664940.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Powers of two (version: 0)

If they should be written in an array or in the loop as we go

Comparing performance of: 2x for charcode-48 vs mm vs oo vs mathfloor vs parseint

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

2x for charcode-48

mm

oo

mathfloor

parseint

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):