Benchmark: osiuhsfsufs8f9o - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

value = 100.102023

Tests:

~~
~~value;
floor
Math.floor(value);
|0
value | 0;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
~~
floor
\|0

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; CrOS x86_64 13421.102.0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/86.0.4240.199 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 86 on Chrome OS 13421.102.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
~~	3623952.0 Ops/sec
floor	1740685.1 Ops/sec
\|0	3870491.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a platform for testing and comparing the performance of JavaScript code in different browsers and environments. The provided benchmark definition and test cases are used to measure the execution time of specific JavaScript operations.

**Benchmark Definition JSON Analysis**

The benchmark definition JSON contains three main fields:

*   `Name`: A unique name for the benchmark.
*   `Description`: An optional description of the benchmark, which is empty in this case.
*   `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: These fields contain JavaScript code that is executed before and after the actual benchmark measurement. The `Script Preparation Code` section contains the line `value = 100.102023`, which sets a variable `value` to a specific number.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three test cases in this benchmark:

1.  **~~** (Non-Numeric Type Coercion)
    *   `Benchmark Definition`: `~~value;`
    *   `Test Name`: ~~
    This operation coerces the `value` variable to a non-numeric type, which will likely result in a `NaN` (Not a Number) value.
2.  **floor**
    *   `Benchmark Definition`: `Math.floor(value);`
    *   `Test Name`: floor
    This operation uses the built-in `Math.floor()` function to round down the `value` variable to the nearest integer.
3.  **|0**
    *   `Benchmark Definition`: `value | 0;`
    *   `Test Name`: |0
    This operation performs a bitwise OR operation with zero (`| 0`). The result of this operation is simply the original value, as any number OR-ed with zero remains unchanged.

**Comparison of Options**

*   **Non-Numeric Type Coercion (~~)**: This option coerces the `value` variable to a non-numeric type, which may lead to unexpected behavior or errors in certain browsers. The pros are that it's simple and straightforward, but the cons are that it can be unpredictable and unreliable.
*   **floor**: This option uses a built-in function to round down the value, providing a predictable result. The pros are that it's reliable and consistent across different browsers. However, the con is that it may not work as expected if the `value` variable contains non-numeric data.
*   **|0**: This option simply returns the original value without any modification. The pros are that it's easy to understand and predictable, but the con is that it doesn't actually test anything meaningful.

**Library Usage**

There is no apparent library usage in this benchmark.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. All operations use standard JavaScript constructs.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to benchmarking JavaScript code include:

*   **Timing functions**: Instead of using built-in functions like `Math.floor()` or bitwise OR, you could use custom timing functions that measure the execution time of specific code paths.
*   ** Profiling tools**: Tools like Chrome DevTools' Profiler can provide detailed information about the execution time and frequency of different code paths in a web page.
*   **Benchmarking frameworks**: Frameworks like Benchmark.js or Jest can help simplify the process of creating and running benchmarks.

Keep in mind that each benchmarking approach has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of which one to use depends on the specific requirements of your project.

Related benchmarks:

osiuhsfsufs8f9o (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: ~~ vs floor vs |0

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

~~

floor

|0

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):