Benchmark: testing - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

1
var o = "HSLU123777"; var a=0,n=-55,e=-48; var x=n+o.charCodeAt(0); var z=n+o.charCodeAt(1); var w=n+o.charCodeAt(2); var v=n+o.charCodeAt(3); a+=x+((x<<7)-(x<<5)+(x<<2)>>10)>>0; a+=z+((z<<7)-(z<<5)+(z<<2)>>10)>>0<<1; a+=w+((w<<7)-(w<<5)+(w<<2)>>10)>>0<<2; a+=v+((v<<7)-(v<<5)+(v<<2)>>10)>>0<<3; a+=e+o.charCodeAt(4)<<4; a+=e+o.charCodeAt(5)<<5; a+=e+o.charCodeAt(6)<<6; a+=e+o.charCodeAt(7)<<7; a+=e+o.charCodeAt(8)<<8; a+=e+o.charCodeAt(9)<<9; var d=a%11%10; return d;
2
var o = "HSLU123777"; var a=0,n=-55,e=-48384; var x=n+o.charCodeAt(0); var z=n+o.charCodeAt(1); var w=n+o.charCodeAt(2); var v=n+o.charCodeAt(3); a+=x+((x<<7)-(x<<5)+(x<<2)>>10)>>0; a+=z+((z<<7)-(z<<5)+(z<<2)>>10)>>0<<1; a+=w+((w<<7)-(w<<5)+(w<<2)>>10)>>0<<2; a+=v+((v<<7)-(v<<5)+(v<<2)>>10)>>0<<3; a+=o.charCodeAt(4)<<4; a+=o.charCodeAt(5)<<5; a+=o.charCodeAt(6)<<6; a+=o.charCodeAt(7)<<7; a+=o.charCodeAt(8)<<8; a+=o.charCodeAt(9)<<9; var d=(a-e)%11%10; return d;
3
var o = "HSLU123777"; var a=0,e=-48384,n=24833,m=-48; var x=(n*(o.charCodeAt(0)+m))>>8>>0; var z=(n*(o.charCodeAt(1)+m))>>8>>0<<1; var w=(n*(o.charCodeAt(2)+m))>>8>>0<<2; var v=(n*(o.charCodeAt(3)+m))>>8>>0<<3; a+=o.charCodeAt(4)<<4; a+=o.charCodeAt(5)<<5; a+=o.charCodeAt(6)<<6; a+=o.charCodeAt(7)<<7; a+=o.charCodeAt(8)<<8; a+=o.charCodeAt(9)<<9; var d=(a-e)%11%10; return d;
4
var o = "HSLU123777"; var a=-48384,n=281,m=-48; a+=(n*(m+o.charCodeAt(0)))>>8; a+=(n*(m+o.charCodeAt(1)))>>8<<1; a+=(n*(m+o.charCodeAt(2)))>>8<<2; a+=(n*(m+o.charCodeAt(3)))>>8<<3; a+=o.charCodeAt(4)<<4; a+=o.charCodeAt(5)<<5; a+=o.charCodeAt(6)<<6; a+=o.charCodeAt(7)<<7; a+=o.charCodeAt(8)<<8; a+=o.charCodeAt(9)<<9; var d=a%11%10; return d;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2
3
4

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 code is crucial in understanding how different approaches can affect execution speed and memory usage.

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case, which tests the execution time of a specific piece of JavaScript code across various browsers and devices. Let's break down what's being tested:

**Test Cases**

There are four test cases (1, 2, 3, and 4), each with slightly different variations in the input data `o`, integer parameters `n` and `e`.

**Options Compared**

The primary options being compared are:

1. **Shift Operators vs. Arithmetic Operations**: In Test Case 1, a shift operator (`>>`) is used to extract bytes from the ASCII code of `o`. In Test Cases 2-4, arithmetic operations (`+`, `-`) with m are employed instead.
2. **Signed and Unsigned Integers**: Test Cases 3 and 4 use unsigned integers (`n`), while Test Cases 1-2 employ signed integers (`e`) for the modulo operation.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

* Shift Operators:
	+ Pros: generally faster due to the lower level arithmetic involved.
	+ Cons: may not work correctly if the input data is not in ASCII format or doesn't have enough bytes.
* Arithmetic Operations:
	+ Pros: easier to understand, less likely to cause issues with non-ASCII inputs.
	+ Cons: potentially slower than shift operators due to higher-level arithmetic.

**Library Usage**

There are no specific libraries being used beyond the standard JavaScript features.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The test code uses:

* Shift operators (`>>`) for extracting bytes from ASCII codes.
* Signed integers (`e`) for the modulo operation (Test Cases 1-2).
* Unsigned integers (`n` and `m`) for the shift operation (Test Cases 3-4).

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives to measuring JavaScript performance include:

* Using a different programming language or framework that's more optimized for performance.
* Employing just-in-time (JIT) compilation techniques, like those used by Node.js or V8.
* Implementing a custom performance testing framework, such as the ones provided by popular frameworks like React or Angular.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require additional setup and configuration, and may not always provide better results.

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
1	980913088.0 Ops/sec
2	983199936.0 Ops/sec
3	980970880.0 Ops/sec
4	989116032.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

testing (version: 0)

ing

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2 vs 3 vs 4

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

3

4

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):