Benchmark: da cancellare - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

x = 232

Tests:

prova 1
if ( x > 0 && (x & 8) == 0 && (x & 16) == 0 && (x & 128) == 0 ){ return (x >>> 0).toString(2); }
prova 2
if ( x > 0 && (x & Math.pow(2,3)) == 0 && (x & Math.pow(2,4)) == 0 && (x & Math.pow(2,7)) == 0 ){ return (x >>> 0).toString(2); }
prova 3
let s = (x >>> 0).toString(2); if ( x > 0 && s.substr(3,1) == '0' && s.substr(4,1) == '0' && s.substr(7,1) == '0' ) { return s; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
prova 1
prova 2
prova 3

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Overview**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of different approaches for checking certain conditions in JavaScript code, specifically related to bitwise operations. The test cases use various libraries and syntax features that are not relevant to most developers, but we'll focus on understanding the concepts and comparing them.

**Test Cases**

There are three individual test cases:

1. `prova 1`:
```javascript
if (x > 0 && (x & 8) == 0 && (x & 16) == 0 && (x & 128) == 0) {
    return (x >>> 0).toString(2);
}
```
This test case checks if the binary representation of `x` has specific bits set. The conditions involve bitwise AND (`&`) and shift right (`>>>`) operations.

2. `prova 2`:
```javascript
if (x > 0 && (x & Math.pow(2,3)) == 0 && (x & Math.pow(2,4)) == 0 && (x & Math.pow(2,7)) == 0) {
    return (x >>> 0).toString(2);
}
```
This test case is similar to the first one, but it uses `Math.pow` to create powers of 2 instead of hardcoding the values.

3. `prova 3`:
```javascript
let s = (x >>> 0).toString(2);
if (x > 0 && s.substr(3,1) == '0' && s.substr(4,1) == '0' && s.substr(7,1) == '0') {
    return s;
}
```
This test case converts `x` to a binary string using `toString(2)` and then checks specific bits in the resulting string using `substr`.

**Library Used**

The tests use bitwise operations, but there is no explicit library mentioned. The `>>> 0` operator is a built-in JavaScript operation.

**Special Features or Syntax**

None of the test cases use special features like ES6 syntax or modern JavaScript modules.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares three approaches:

1. **Direct Bitwise Operations**: `prova 1` and `prova 2` use direct bitwise operations to check conditions.
2. **String Manipulation**: `prova 3` converts the input to a binary string using `toString(2)` and then checks specific bits.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Direct Bitwise Operations**:
	* Pros: Efficient, straightforward, and easy to understand.
	* Cons: May be slower for large inputs due to the number of operations required.
2. **String Manipulation**:
	* Pros: Easy to read and maintain, as it uses familiar string manipulation techniques.
	* Cons: Slower than direct bitwise operations, especially for large inputs.

**Other Considerations**

* The tests are designed to measure performance, so the results may vary depending on the specific hardware and software configurations used.
* The benchmark only checks specific conditions, which might not be representative of all use cases where these bitwise operations are applied.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you wanted to optimize these tests or compare alternative approaches, you could consider:

1. Using just-in-time (JIT) compilation techniques to improve performance.
2. Comparing the results with other languages or libraries that optimize for similar tasks.
3. Experimenting with different algorithmic optimizations, such as using lookup tables or caching.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require a deeper understanding of the specific requirements and constraints of the project.

I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested in this benchmark!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
prova 1	4633405.5 Ops/sec
prova 2	3188520.5 Ops/sec
prova 3	3156878.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

da cancellare (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: prova 1 vs prova 2 vs prova 3

Created: 9 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

prova 1

prova 2

prova 3

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):