Benchmark: math pow N127 vs multiply

Tests:

pow
var x = Math.pow(54,127);
mult
var y = (() => { var n = 54; var r = 1; for (var i = 0; i < 127; 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

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 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	19658142.0 Ops/sec
mult	14095944.0 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 and its various components.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, specifically designed to compare the performance of `Math.pow` and multiplication (`*`) for large exponent values (in this case, 127).

**Options Compared**

Two main options are being compared:

1. **`Math.pow`**: This function takes two arguments: the base value and the exponent. It calculates the power using a logarithmic algorithm.
2. **Multiplication (`*`) with a loop**: This approach multiplies the base value by itself 127 times to achieve the desired exponent.

**Pros and Cons**

### `Math.pow`

Pros:

* Efficient for small to medium-sized exponents (due to its logarithmic algorithm)
* Native function, optimized by the JavaScript engine

Cons:

* May not be as efficient for very large exponents due to potential rounding errors
* Can be slower than a simple multiplication loop due to additional overhead (e.g., calculating the square root)

### Multiplication with a Loop

Pros:

* Simple and easy to implement
* No overhead or rounding errors, making it suitable for large exponent values

Cons:

* May not be as efficient as `Math.pow` due to unnecessary iterations
* Requires more code and potential performance overhead (e.g., calculating the number of iterations)

**Library Usage**

None.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The test cases use a feature called **Immediately Invoked Function Expression (IIFE)**, denoted by the single parentheses (`()`) surrounding the function body. This syntax is used to create a new scope and execute the code immediately.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided `Script Preparation Code` is empty, which means that the benchmark can be run with minimal setup or no additional code required. However, it's recommended to include some basic setup (e.g., declaring variables) to make the test more representative of real-world scenarios.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to compare other approaches, consider adding test cases for:

* **Recursive multiplication**: Using a recursive function to multiply the base value by itself 127 times.
* **Exponentiation by squaring**: Implementing a more efficient exponentiation algorithm that avoids unnecessary iterations.
* **Native WebAssembly (WASM) implementation**: If available on your target platform, using WASM's built-in exponentiation functions for comparison.

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these alternatives may be negligible or require specific hardware and software configurations to demonstrate significant variations.

Related benchmarks:

math pow N127 vs multiply (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: pow vs mult

Created: 4 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 2 months ago):