Benchmark: testing - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

1st
var i = "HDMU987481" var a = 0; var x = i.charCodeAt(0)-55; var y = i.charCodeAt(1)-55; var z = i.charCodeAt(2)-55; var w = i.charCodeAt(3)-55; a+=Math.floor(x>>3.35)+x; a+=(Math.floor(y>>3.35)+y)<<1; a+=(Math.floor(z>>3.35)+z)<<2; a+=(Math.floor(w>>3.35)+w)<<3; a+=(i.charCodeAt(4)-48)<<4; a+=(i.charCodeAt(5)-48)<<5; a+=(i.charCodeAt(6)-48)<<6; a+=(i.charCodeAt(7)-48)<<7; a+=(i.charCodeAt(8)-48)<<8; a+=(i.charCodeAt(9)-48)<<9; var b = a % 11 % 10; return b
2nd
var i = "HDMU987481" var a = 0; var x = i.charCodeAt(0)-55; var y = i.charCodeAt(1)-55; var z = i.charCodeAt(2)-55; var w = i.charCodeAt(3)-55; a+=Math.floor(x>>3.35)+x; a+=(Math.floor(y>>3.35)+y)*2; a+=(Math.floor(z>>3.35)+z)*4; a+=(Math.floor(w>>3.35)+w)*8; a+=i.charCodeAt(4)*16-768; a+=i.charCodeAt(5)*32-1536; a+=i.charCodeAt(6)*64-3072; a+=i.charCodeAt(7)*128-6144; a+=i.charCodeAt(8)*256-12288; a+=i.charCodeAt(9)*512-24576; var b = a % 11 % 10; return b
3rd
var i = "HDMU987481" var a = 0; var x = i.charCodeAt(0)-55; var y = i.charCodeAt(1)-55; var z = i.charCodeAt(2)-55; var w = i.charCodeAt(3)-55; a+=((x>>3.35)+x)>>0; a+=(((y>>3.35)+y)>>0)<<1; a+=(((z>>3.35)+z)>>0)<<2; a+=(((w>>3.35)+w)>>0)<<3; a+=(i.charCodeAt(4)-48)<<4; a+=(i.charCodeAt(5)-48)<<5; a+=(i.charCodeAt(6)-48)<<6; a+=(i.charCodeAt(7)-48)<<7; a+=(i.charCodeAt(8)-48)<<8; a+=(i.charCodeAt(9)-48)<<9; var b = a % 11 % 10; return b

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1st
2nd
3rd

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of JavaScript benchmarks like this one can be complex, and there are several approaches to test different parts of the code. I'll break down what's tested, compare options, and discuss their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is the actual JavaScript code being executed. In this case, it consists of a series of operations involving character codes, arithmetic operations, and bitwise shifts. The goal of the benchmark is to measure the performance of these operations on different inputs.

**Options Compared**

There are three test cases with slightly different operations:

1. **Test Case 1 ("1st")**: This test case has the most complex operations, including a mix of arithmetic and bitwise shifts.
2. **Test Case 2 ("2nd")**: This test case has similar operations to Test Case 1 but with some differences in the multiplication factor (e.g., `y * 2` instead of just `y`).
3. **Test Case 3 ("3rd")**: This test case has a simpler operation, where each character code is shifted by a fixed amount using the `>>` operator.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Test Case 1**: Pros - most representative of real-world scenarios; Cons - may be too complex for some browsers or hardware.
* **Test Case 2**: Pros - slightly simpler than Test Case 1, but still representative; Cons - changes in multiplication factor might not accurately reflect real-world use cases.
* **Test Case 3**: Pros - simplest operation, easy to compare; Cons - might not accurately represent real-world scenarios.

**Library and Syntax Considerations**

There is no library used in these benchmark definitions. The code only uses built-in JavaScript functions like `charCodeAt()`, `Math.floor()`, `>>>` (bitwise right shift), and arithmetic operators (`+`, `*`, etc.).

No special JS features or syntax are used in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When writing benchmarks, it's essential to consider the following factors:

* **Input sizes**: The size of the input data can significantly impact performance. Larger inputs may be slower due to increased memory allocation and access.
* **Browser-specific optimizations**: Different browsers have varying levels of optimization for certain operations. Benchmarking on multiple browsers can provide a more comprehensive understanding of performance differences.
* **Hardware variations**: Different hardware configurations (e.g., CPU, GPU, RAM) can affect performance.

**Alternatives**

If you need to benchmark JavaScript code with different inputs or scenarios, consider the following alternatives:

* **JSHint**: A popular linter for JavaScript that provides a range of configuration options and can be used as a starting point for benchmarks.
* **Benchmark.js**: An open-source library specifically designed for creating benchmarks in Node.js and other environments.
* **WebPageTest**: A browser-based benchmarking tool that measures the performance of web pages on different browsers, devices, and networks.

By considering these factors and alternatives, you can create more comprehensive and representative benchmarks for your JavaScript code.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:54.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/54.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 54 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1st	72459648.0 Ops/sec
2nd	73266352.0 Ops/sec
3rd	971283712.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

testing (version: 0)

test

Comparing performance of: 1st vs 2nd vs 3rd

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1st

2nd

3rd

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):