Benchmark: loop vs recursion

Tests:

rec
x = function (n){ n++; if (n < 1000){x(n);}; } x(0)
loop
x = function (n){ while(n < 1000){ n++}}; x(0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
rec
loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/53.0.2785.143 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 53 on Mac OS X 10.11.3

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
rec	4057.5 Ops/sec
loop	245354.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that defines the test case. In this case, there are two test cases:

1. "loop vs recursion"
2. "rec" and "loop"

These two test cases are designed to compare the performance of loop-based and recursive approaches in a simple counter incrementation task.

**Script Preparation Code**

There is no script preparation code provided, which means that the benchmarking framework will generate the JavaScript code for each test case automatically.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is also no html preparation code provided, which suggests that the benchmarking framework will not render any HTML content before running the benchmarks.

**Test Cases**

Let's break down each test case:

1. **"rec" (Recursive)**

The benchmark definition for this test case uses a recursive function to increment the counter:
```javascript
x = function (n){ n++; if (n < 1000){x(n);}; };
```
This function calls itself with the incremented value until it reaches 1000. The purpose of this test is to measure the overhead of recursive function calls.

2. **"loop" (Loop-based)**

The benchmark definition for this test case uses a while loop to increment the counter:
```javascript
x = function (n){ while(n < 1000){ n++}};
```
This code increments the value in a single pass until it reaches 1000. The purpose of this test is to measure the overhead of a simple loop-based approach.

**Library Usage**

There are no explicit library references used in these benchmark definitions, which suggests that the JavaScript engine being tested does not rely on external libraries for execution.

**JavaScript Features or Syntax**

None of these benchmarks explicitly use special JavaScript features or syntax. They use basic, idiomatic language constructs to achieve their goals.

**Other Alternatives**

For a similar task, you could consider using other benchmarking tools or frameworks that support JavaScript microbenchmarks. Some popular alternatives include:

* jsperf (now deprecated)
* jsbenchmark
* benchmark.js
* BenchmarkLib

Keep in mind that the choice of benchmarking tool will depend on your specific requirements and needs.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons associated with each approach:

1. **Recursive vs Loop-based**
	* Pros:
		+ Recursive functions can be more elegant and easier to understand for simple tasks.
		+ Can provide insights into the overhead of function calls and stack management.
	* Cons:
		+ Recursion can lead to performance issues due to repeated function call overhead.
		+ May cause stack overflows for large inputs or deep recursion.
2. **Loop-based**
	* Pros:
		+ Generally faster than recursive approaches, as it avoids the overhead of function calls.
		+ Less susceptible to stack overflows and other recursion-related issues.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be as elegant or easy to understand for some developers.

Ultimately, the choice between recursive and loop-based approaches depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

loop vs recursion (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: rec vs loop

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

rec

loop

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):