Benchmark: fibo-algo - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script>
function fiboLoop(num){
  var a = 1, b = 0, temp;

  while (num >= 0){
    temp = a;
    a = a + b;
    b = temp;
    num--;
  }

  return b;
}

function fiboRec(num) {
  if (num <= 1) return 1;

  return fiboRec(num - 1) + fiboRec(num - 2);
}

function fiboMemo(num, memo) {
  memo = memo || {};

  if (memo[num]) return memo[num];
  if (num <= 1) return 1;

  return memo[num] = fiboMemo(num - 1, memo) + fiboMemo(num - 2, memo);
}
  
function Fib() {
    this.cache = new Map();

    this.calc = function(n) {
        if (n <= 1) return n;
    
        let op1, op2;
    
        this.cache.has(n - 1) ? op1 = this.cache.get(n - 1) : this.cache.set(n - 1, op1 = this.calc(n - 1));
        this.cache.has(n - 2) ? op2 = this.cache.get(n - 2) : this.cache.set(n - 2, op2 = this.calc(n - 2));

        return op1 + op2;
    };
}
var fib = new Fib();
</script>

Tests:

Loop
fiboLoop(20)
Recursive
fiboRec(20)
Memoization
fiboMemo(20)
Recursive using Map as cache
fib.calc(20)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Loop
Recursive
Memoization
Recursive using Map as cache

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:71.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/71.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 71 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Loop	17640006.0 Ops/sec
Recursive	13876.5 Ops/sec
Memoization	1578506.0 Ops/sec
Recursive using Map as cache	4573487.5 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 explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is testing three different approaches to calculating the nth Fibonacci number:

1. **Loop**: A simple iterative approach using a while loop to calculate the Fibonacci sequence.
2. **Recursive**: A recursive function-based approach, where each call breaks down the problem into smaller sub-problems until the base case is reached.
3. **Memoization**: An optimization technique that stores the results of expensive function calls and returns the cached result when the same inputs occur again.

**Library and Functionality**

The benchmark uses a custom `Fib` class with a `calc` method, which implements the recursive approach using a Map as cache. The `Fib` class is not a standard JavaScript library; it's a custom implementation of memoization to optimize the recursive function.

**Special JS Features**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Comparison of Approaches**

Here's a brief comparison of the three approaches:

1. **Loop**: This approach has the least overhead, as it only uses basic arithmetic operations and doesn't require any function calls or cache management.
	* Pros: Simple to implement, low overhead.
	* Cons: May not be efficient for large inputs due to repeated calculations.
2. **Recursive**: This approach breaks down the problem into smaller sub-problems, but also creates multiple stack frames, leading to increased overhead.
	* Pros: Can be more intuitive to implement, reduces code duplication.
	* Cons: Can lead to stack overflow errors for large inputs, has high overhead due to function calls and cache management.
3. **Memoization**: This approach stores the results of expensive function calls and returns the cached result when the same inputs occur again, reducing overhead.
	* Pros: Efficient for large inputs, reduces function call overhead.
	* Cons: Requires additional memory to store the cache.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to compare these approaches with others, you could consider:

1. **Dynamic Programming**: Similar to memoization, but uses arrays or objects to store intermediate results instead of a Map.
2. **Iterative Approach using Arrays**: Uses arrays to store intermediate results and avoid function calls.
3. **Use of Native JavaScript Functions**: Uses built-in JavaScript functions like `reduce()` or `forEach()` to implement the Fibonacci sequence.

These alternatives might offer better performance, simplicity, or ease of implementation, depending on your specific requirements.

Related benchmarks:

fibo-algo (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Loop vs Recursive vs Memoization vs Recursive using Map as cache

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Loop

Recursive

Memoization

Recursive using Map as cache

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):