Benchmark: Math.ceil - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var test = 190.4;

Tests:

Math.ceil(test)
Math.ceil(test)
~~test
~~test

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.ceil(test)
~~test

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is testing two individual test cases:

1. `Math.ceil` (using the built-in JavaScript function)
2. ~~test~~ (using bitwise NOT operator to negate the value of `test`)

The benchmark measures the execution time of these two tests in different browsers and devices.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, there are only two options being compared:

1. Using the built-in `Math.ceil` function
2. Using bitwise NOT operator (`~~`) to negate the value of `test`

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

* **Using `Math.ceil`**: This is a straightforward and widely supported approach. However, it may not be as efficient or optimized for certain browsers or devices.
* **Bitwise NOT Operator (`~~`)**: This approach uses a non-standard bitwise operation to negate the value of `test`. While it's simple and concise, it might not be as readable or maintainable as using a built-in function like `Math.ceil`.

**Library Usage**

There is no library being used in this benchmark. However, if we were to look at the individual test cases, `test` is assigned a value from the script preparation code: `var test = 190.4;`. This suggests that `test` is a global variable, but its purpose is not explicitly stated.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that using bitwise NOT operator (`~~`) to negate a number is an unusual approach and might be considered non-standard by some JavaScript developers.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to write a similar benchmark, here are some alternative approaches:

* Use other built-in functions like `Math.floor()` or `Number()` instead of `Math.ceil`.
* Experiment with different data types (e.g., strings, objects) to see how the benchmarks perform.
* Add more test cases using various arithmetic operations (e.g., addition, multiplication) to cover a broader range of scenarios.
* Use a library like Benchmark.js or jsperf to create and run benchmarks.

Keep in mind that benchmarking can be complex, and the results may vary depending on the specific browser, device, and environment used.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 17 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.ceil(test)	3769954.2 Ops/sec
~~test	4065725.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Math.ceil (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.ceil(test) vs ~~test

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.ceil(test)

~~test

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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