Benchmark: Math.max vs ternary (patched)

Script Preparation code:

this.number = Math.random() * 1000

Tests:

Math.max
return Math.max(501, this.number)
ternary
return this.number >= 501 ? this.number : 501

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.max
ternary

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/99.0.4844.51 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 99 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.max	2125422.0 Ops/sec
ternary	391360256.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two test cases:

1. `return Math.max(501, this.number)`
2. `return this.number >= 501 ? this.number : 501`

These two expressions are compared to determine which one is faster.

**Options Compared**

In the first expression, `Math.max` is used as a function to find the maximum value between 501 and `this.number`.

In the second expression, a ternary operator (`?`) is used to check if `this.number` is greater than or equal to 501. If true, it returns `this.number`; otherwise, it returns 501.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Math.max**:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and well-optimized.
	* Cons: May be slower for small inputs due to the overhead of calling a function.
2. **Ternary Operator**:
	* Pros: Can be faster for small inputs because it avoids the overhead of calling `Math.max`.
	* Cons: May not be as readable or maintainable as using `Math.max`, especially for more complex expressions.

**Library Used**

None explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON, but it's likely that the benchmark is running on a browser where JavaScript engines are responsible for executing the code.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There isn't any special JavaScript feature or syntax being used here. The expressions are straightforward and rely on standard JavaScript operators and functions.

**Other Considerations**

* The `this.number` assignment is performed before each test case to ensure that a new random value is generated for each run.
* The benchmark uses a fixed input value (501) in the first expression, while using the dynamic value of `this.number` in both expressions.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to write this benchmark yourself, here are some alternatives:

1. Use a JavaScript testing framework like Jest or Mocha to create test cases and run benchmarks.
2. Utilize a library like Benchmark.js (which is similar to MeasureThat.net) for creating and running benchmarks.
3. Implement a simple benchmark using the `performance.now()` function in JavaScript, which measures the time elapsed between two specific points.

Keep in mind that writing an accurate benchmark requires careful consideration of factors like input variability, caching effects, and platform-specific optimizations.

Related benchmarks:

Math.max vs ternary (patched) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.max vs ternary

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.max

ternary

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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