Benchmark: Math.pow vs ** vs * (power of 2)

Tests:

pow
var tmp = Math.pow(6, 2);
**
var tmp = 6 ** 2;
*
var tmp = 6 * 6;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pow
**
*

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided JSON.

The benchmark is comparing three different approaches to calculate the square of a number: `Math.pow()`, exponentiation using two asterisks (`**`), and multiplication followed by squaring (`* *`). The test is focused on measuring the performance difference between these three approaches.

Here's a brief overview of each approach:

1. **Math.pow()**: This method takes two arguments, the base and the exponent, and returns the result of raising the base to the power of the exponent. In this case, `Math.pow(6, 2)` calculates the square of 6.
2. **Exponentiation using `**`**: This is a shorthand syntax for exponentiation introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It allows you to raise a number to a power by separating the base and the exponent with two asterisks. In this case, `6 ** 2` calculates the square of 6.
3. **Multiplication followed by squaring**: This approach involves multiplying the number by itself twice to calculate its square. In this case, `6 * 6` is multiplied by itself.

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

*   **Math.pow()**:
    *   Pros: Well-established and widely supported, makes it easy to express power calculations.
    *   Cons: May have performance overhead due to the use of a built-in function and potential rounding issues.
*   **Exponentiation using `**`**: 
    *   Pros: More concise and readable syntax compared to traditional exponentiation methods. Can be more efficient than using Math.pow() for small exponents.
    *   Cons: May not be supported in older browsers or versions of JavaScript, requires careful consideration when working with legacy codebases.
*   **Multiplication followed by squaring**:
    *   Pros: No built-in function overhead; can be faster than `Math.pow()` and `**` for very large exponents. However, may result in more complex calculations due to the need to repeat multiplication.

In terms of performance, the results from the latest benchmark show that:

*   The exponentiation operator (`**`) is the fastest approach, with an average execution rate of approximately 830 million executions per second.
*   Multiplication followed by squaring (`* *`) is significantly slower than both `Math.pow()` and `**`, with an average execution rate of around 4.8 million executions per second.
*   `Math.pow(6, 2)` has a performance in between the two approaches above.

As for libraries or external features being used, there are no specific libraries mentioned. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may have additional optimization techniques or built-in functions that can affect performance when dealing with exponentiation and other mathematical operations.

Keep in mind that these results might vary depending on your environment and specific use cases.

Finally, if you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to this benchmark, here are a few options:

*   **Bitwise operations**: This approach uses bitwise shift operators to calculate powers of 2. While it's more complex than the methods above, it can be faster for large exponents due to its low-level nature.
*   **Caching and memoization**: This technique involves storing previously computed results in a cache or using memoization to store intermediate calculations. It can significantly improve performance when dealing with repeated exponentiation operations.

These alternatives might not offer the same level of conciseness or readability as `**`, but they can provide significant performance benefits for specific use cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/109.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 109 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
pow	4828067.0 Ops/sec
**	830773952.0 Ops/sec
*	817021312.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Math.pow vs ** vs * (power of 2) (version: 0)

power of 2 (square) test

Comparing performance of: pow vs ** vs *

Created: 11 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

pow

**

*

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):