Benchmark: math pow N1000 vs multiply

Tests:

pow
var x = Math.pow(54,1000);
mult
var y = (() => { var n = 54; var r = 1; for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { r *= n; } return r; })();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pow
mult

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that contains information about the benchmark being run. In this case, there are two benchmarks defined:

1. `Name`: "math pow N1000 vs multiply"
2. `Description`: null (no description is provided)
3. `Script Preparation Code`: null (no script preparation code is required)
4. `Html Preparation Code`: null (no HTML preparation code is needed)

The benchmark definition does not provide any specific JavaScript features or syntax, but it does indicate that the test will compare two different methods for calculating the power of a number: using the built-in `Math.pow()` function versus an implementation using multiplication.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Test Case 1: "pow"**
The benchmark definition is: `var x = Math.pow(54,1000);`
This test case measures the execution time of simply calling the built-in `Math.pow()` function with a specific input value (`54` raised to the power of `1000`).

2. **Test Case 2: "mult"**
The benchmark definition is: `var y = (() => { var n = 54; var r = 1; for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { r *= n; } return r; })();`
This test case measures the execution time of implementing a manual multiplication method to calculate the power of `54` raised to `1000`. This implementation uses a simple loop that multiplies the result by `n` in each iteration.

**Comparison**

The two test cases compare the performance of using the built-in `Math.pow()` function versus an implementation using multiplication. The latter approach is likely to be slower due to its manual nature, whereas the former approach leverages the optimized internal implementation of `Math.pow()`.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Using Math.pow():**
	+ Pros:
		- Optimized internal implementation
		- Faster execution time
	+ Cons:
		- Limited control over the calculation process
		- May not be suitable for all use cases (e.g., custom calculations)
* **Manual Multiplication:**
	+ Pros:
		- Customizable and flexible
		- Can be useful for specific use cases or edge cases
	+ Cons:
		- Slower execution time due to manual loop implementation
		- May introduce additional overhead or complexity

**Library and Special JS Features**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the `Math.pow()` function relies on internal implementations that are part of the JavaScript language standard.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The only special feature/syntax used in this benchmark is the use of a higher-order function (`( () => { ... } )()`) to define an immediately invoked function expression (IIFE). This is not a specific JavaScript feature, but rather a common programming pattern used to create anonymous functions.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to reimplement this benchmark with different approaches or libraries, some alternative options might include:

* Using a library like `numjs` or `mathjs` for numerical computations
* Implementing the power calculation using a more efficient algorithm (e.g., exponentiation by squaring)
* Comparing the performance of other built-in JavaScript functions (e.g., `Math.exp()`, `Math.log()`)

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require modifications to the benchmark definition and test cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
pow	19696762.0 Ops/sec
mult	1247034.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

math pow N1000 vs multiply (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: pow vs mult

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

pow

mult

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):