Benchmark: testgvstrgvstgv - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var arr = new Array(1000);
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; ++i) {
 arr[i] = Math.random(); 
}
var x = 0;

Tests:

a
for (var a = 0; a < arr.length; ++a) { x = arr[a] + 1; }
b
for (var b = 0, len = arr.length; b < len; ++b) { x = arr[b] + 1; }
c
var c = arr.length; while (--c) { x = arr[c] + 1; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
a
b
c

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what is tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that measures the performance of different approaches to increment an array element. The script preparation code initializes an array of length 1000 with random values using `Math.random()`. Then, it sets up a variable `x` to zero.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided in this benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

The individual test cases compare three different approaches:

1. **a**: A simple loop that increments each element of the array using `arr[a] = arr[a] + 1;`. This approach uses a traditional for loop with an index variable.
2. **b**: Another loop that increments each element of the array using `arr[b] = arr[b] + 1;`. However, this time, it initializes the loop counter (`len`) outside the loop and uses it to determine the number of iterations.
3. **c**: A while loop that decrements the index variable until it reaches zero, incrementing each element of the array using `arr[c] = arr[c] + 1;`.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

* **a**: Simple to implement, easy to understand. However, it may have performance issues if the loop counter is not optimized.
* **b**: More efficient than **a**, as it avoids unnecessary increments of the loop counter. However, it requires initializing an extra variable (`len`).
* **c**: May be less efficient due to the overhead of decrementing the index variable. However, it can be optimized using techniques like array iteration or caching.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There is no explicit library used in this benchmark. However, it uses a few advanced JavaScript features:

* `for...of` loop (not explicitly shown) is implied by the use of an array and a variable (`arr`) that increments its value.
* `let` keyword is not necessary here, but it's a good practice to use `const` for declaring variables.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches could be:

* Using a library like NumJS or Math.js, which provides optimized numerical computations.
* Implementing the increment operation using bitwise operations (e.g., using left shift and add).
* Using parallel processing or multi-threading techniques to execute multiple iterations of the loop concurrently.

These alternatives might provide better performance in specific scenarios but would likely increase complexity and require additional setup.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/62.0.3202.97 Safari/537.36 Vivaldi/1.94.1008.34

Browser/OS: Chrome 62 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
a	2449.7 Ops/sec
b	3413.7 Ops/sec
c	3411.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

testgvstrgvstgv (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: a vs b vs c

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

a

b

c

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):