Benchmark: Exponentiation comparison

Tests:

pow
var b = Math.pow(Math.random(),18);
manual
var a = Math.random(); var b = a * a;
Exponentiation
var b = Math.random() ** 2

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pow
manual
Exponentiation

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/110.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 110 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
pow	1086802688.0 Ops/sec
manual	1089824000.0 Ops/sec
Exponentiation	1089671680.0 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 benchmark test and explain what is being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**What is being tested:**

MeasureThat.net is testing the performance of exponentiation operations in JavaScript, specifically comparing three different methods:

1. Using the `Math.pow` function with a random base.
2. Manual multiplication using the result of a random number squared.
3. Exponentiation using the `**` operator.

The test aims to measure which method is the fastest and most efficient in terms of execution time per second.

**Options compared:**

1. **Math.pow**: This method uses a binary exponentiation algorithm, which is optimized for performance. It's likely to be one of the faster methods.
2. **Manual multiplication**: This method involves squaring a random number and then multiplying it by itself. This approach can be slow due to the repeated calculations involved.
3. **Exponentiation (`**` operator)**: This method uses a simple, but less optimized algorithm for exponentiation. It's likely to be slower than `Math.pow`.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Math.pow**:
	* Pros: Fast, optimized, and widely supported.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for very large exponents due to potential overflows.
2. **Manual multiplication**:
	* Pros: None notable.
	* Cons: Slow due to repeated calculations and squaring operations.
3. **Exponentiation (`**` operator)**:
	* Pros: Simple, easy to understand, and relatively fast.
	* Cons: Less optimized than `Math.pow`, may be slower for large exponents.

**Other considerations:**

1. **Library usage**: The test cases use the built-in JavaScript functions `Math.pow`, `Math.random()`, and the `**` operator, which are all part of the standard library.
2. **JS feature or syntax**: There are no special JS features or syntax used in these tests.

**Alternative approaches:**

Other methods for exponentiation include:

1. **Integer exponentiation algorithms**: Specialized algorithms for fast integer exponentiation, such as the "square-and-multiply" algorithm.
2. **Binary search exponentiation**: An algorithm that uses binary search to find the smallest power of a base that exceeds a given value.
3. **Monte Carlo methods**: Numerical methods that use random sampling to estimate exponential functions.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as straightforward or well-suited for JavaScript, and may require additional implementation effort.

In summary, the benchmark test is designed to compare three common exponentiation methods in JavaScript: `Math.pow`, manual multiplication, and exponentiation using the `**` operator. The results indicate that `Math.pow` is likely the fastest method, followed closely by exponentiation using the `**` operator.

Related benchmarks:

Exponentiation comparison (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: pow vs manual vs Exponentiation

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

pow

manual

Exponentiation

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):