Benchmark: math pow 0 vs pow 2

Tests:

pow 0
var x = Math.pow(54,0);
pow 2
var x = Math.pow(54,2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pow 0
pow 2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is crucial for optimizing and comparing the behavior of different libraries and code optimizations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the execution speed of two variants of `Math.pow` function: one with an exponent of 0 (`pow 0`) and another with an exponent of 2 (`pow 2`). The goal is to determine which variant executes faster, assuming that the input value (54) remains constant.

**Comparison Options**

There are two primary options being compared:

1. **Exponent 0**: `Math.pow(54, 0)`
2. **Exponent 2**: `Math.pow(54, 2)`

These two functions are identical except for the exponent value passed to the `pow` method.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

*   **Exponent 0 (pow 0)**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Faster execution speed due to avoiding unnecessary calculations.
        *   Simplifies the mathematical operation, reducing computational complexity.
    *   Cons:
        *   May result in slightly different results due to floating-point arithmetic limitations.
    *   In this case, since any number raised to the power of 0 equals 1, the execution speed difference might be negligible.

*   **Exponent 2 (pow 2)**:
    *   Pros:
        *   More intuitive for simple calculations, such as squaring a value.
        *   Fewer potential issues with floating-point precision.
    *   Cons:
        *   Takes longer to execute compared to exponent 0 due to additional calculations.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's essential to note that when measuring JavaScript performance, libraries can introduce significant overhead and affect results. If a library were used in the original code, its presence could skew the results.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. The use of `Math.pow` is straightforward, and no advanced features like async/await, closures, or arrow functions appear to be relevant.

**Alternative Benchmarks**

If you want to explore other aspects of JavaScript performance, consider the following alternatives:

*   Compare the execution speed of different mathematical libraries, such as `BigInt`, `Number`, or specialized libraries for linear algebra operations.
*   Investigate the impact of optimizations like lazy loading, caching, or memoization on performance-critical code segments.
*   Analyze how different programming languages (e.g., Python, Java) compare in terms of execution speed when running equivalent JavaScript code.

Keep in mind that each benchmark should focus on a specific aspect of performance to ensure accurate and meaningful results.

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 0	19044924.0 Ops/sec
pow 2	19192436.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

math pow 0 vs pow 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: pow 0 vs pow 2

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

pow 0

pow 2

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):