Benchmark: bitLen - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

bitLen using while loop
function bitLength(number) { let bitsCounter = 0; while ((1 << bitsCounter) <= number) { bitsCounter += 1; } return bitsCounter; }
bitLen using Number
function bitLength(number) { return Number(number).toString(2).length; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
bitLen using while loop
bitLen using Number

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this JavaScript benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**
The first part of the provided JSON is the Benchmark Definition, which represents a single test case. In this case, there are two benchmark definitions:

1. "function bitLength(number) { ... } using while loop"
2. "function bitLength(number) { ... } using Number"

**Options Compared**
These two benchmark definitions are being compared to see which one is faster.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Using While Loop**:
	* Pros: This approach allows for a manual way to count the bits, giving the developer fine-grained control over the bit counting process.
	* Cons: It can be error-prone and may not work as expected for certain edge cases (e.g., negative numbers).
2. **Using Number**:
	* Pros: This approach is concise and easy to understand, making it a good choice for simple tasks like bit length calculation.
	* Cons: It relies on the `Number` function's binary representation, which might not be optimal for all types of inputs.

**Library Usage**
There is no library being used in these benchmark definitions. The functions are plain JavaScript implementations.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**
There is a special JS feature being used here - `while` loop and also the use of bitwise operators (`<<`). This is a fundamental aspect of JavaScript that can significantly impact performance, especially for certain types of computations like bit length calculation.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark is running on a Linux desktop environment with Chrome 79.
* The test cases are executing approximately 736 million times per second.

**Alternatives**
To improve the accuracy and speed of these benchmark tests, alternative approaches could include:

1. Using a library or framework specifically designed for bit length calculations, like `bitutil` or `int32`.
2. Utilizing parallel processing techniques to execute multiple iterations of the while loop simultaneously.
3. Leveraging Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation to optimize the JavaScript functions.
4. Employing other advanced optimization techniques, such as caching or memoization.

These alternative approaches might not be feasible without significant rewrites of the benchmark code, but exploring them could provide further insights into performance optimizations.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/79.0.3945.130 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 79 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
bitLen using while loop	735132736.0 Ops/sec
bitLen using Number	736665728.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

bitLen (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: bitLen using while loop vs bitLen using Number

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

bitLen using while loop

bitLen using Number

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):