Benchmark: Random perf - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Tests:

Small diff
_.random(99999, 999999);
Large diff
_.random(99999, Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Small diff
Large diff

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/110.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 110 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Small diff	12175269.0 Ops/sec
Large diff	3519402.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its components.

**What is tested on the provided JSON?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case. The test case consists of two individual test cases, each with a unique "Benchmark Definition" string that defines the operation being measured.

In this case, the operations are:

1. `_.random(99999, 999999);` (Small diff)
2. `_.random(99999, Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER);` (Large diff)

The test cases use the Lodash library, which is a popular utility library for JavaScript. The `_.random()` function generates a random number within a specified range.

**Options compared**

The two test cases compare different options:

1. Small diff: A relatively small random number range (99999 to 999999).
2. Large diff: A very large random number range (99999 to the maximum safe integer value).

These comparisons aim to measure the performance of the Lodash `_.random()` function under different conditions.

**Pros and Cons of those approaches**

1. Small diff:
	* Pros: It's a relatively small and manageable range, making it easier to analyze results.
	* Cons: The difference between the two options might be too small to detect meaningful performance differences.
2. Large diff:
	* Pros: It tests the function's ability to handle large ranges, which is more representative of real-world usage.
	* Cons: The large range might lead to slower execution times due to increased overhead.

**Other considerations**

1. Warm-up and garbage collection: The test cases do not account for warm-up periods or garbage collection, which can affect performance in real-world scenarios.
2. Environment variability: The benchmark results are specific to a single device (Mac OS X 10.15.7) and browser (Chrome 110). Results may vary on other devices or browsers.

**Library description**

The Lodash library is a utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string processing, and more. In this case, the `_.random()` function generates a random number within a specified range.

**Special JS feature or syntax (not applicable)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code is standard JavaScript.

**Alternatives**

Alternative benchmarks for comparing performance could include:

1. Basic arithmetic operations (e.g., addition, multiplication)
2. Array manipulation functions (e.g., `array.indexOf()`, `array.sort()`)
3. String processing functions (e.g., `string.split()`, `string.replace()`)
4. More complex algorithms (e.g., sorting large datasets)

These alternative benchmarks would allow for a more comprehensive understanding of performance characteristics in different JavaScript scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

Random perf (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Small diff vs Large diff

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Small diff

Large diff

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):