Benchmark: eval vs parseInt vs Number vs JSON.parse

Tests:

long eval()
eval("99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999");
long parseInt()
parseInt("99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999");
short eval()
eval("999");
short parseInt()
parseInt("999");
short Number class call
Number('999');
long Number class call
Number('99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999');
short JSON.parse
JSON.parse('999');
long JSON.parse
JSON.parse('99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
long eval()
long parseInt()
short eval()
short parseInt()
short Number class call
long Number class call
short JSON.parse
long JSON.parse

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance of three different ways to parse or convert numbers:

1. `eval()`: executes a string as JavaScript code.
2. `parseInt()`: converts a string to an integer value.
3. `Number()`: creates a new number object from a string.
4. `JSON.parse()`: parses a JSON string into a JavaScript object.

These functions are used to parse or convert numbers, which can be useful in various scenarios such as handling user input, processing data from APIs, or validating user-generated content.

**Comparison of options**

The benchmark compares the performance of these four options for different types and lengths of input:

* Short `eval()` (single-digit number)
* Long `eval()` (long string representation of a large number)
* Short `parseInt()`
* Long `parseInt()`
* Short `Number` class call
* Long `Number` class call
* Short `JSON.parse()`
* Long `JSON.parse()`

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons for each option:

1. **eval()**:
	* Pros: Can parse complex expressions, flexible.
	* Cons: Evaluates arbitrary JavaScript code, security risks if not sanitized.
2. **parseInt()**:
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, and secure (if used correctly).
	* Cons: Limited to parsing integers only, can be brittle.
3. **Number()**:
	+ Pros: Creates a new number object, more flexible than `parseInt()`.
	+ Cons: Can create unnecessary objects in memory.
4. **JSON.parse()**:
	+ Pros: Fast and efficient for parsing JSON data.
	+ Cons: Limited to parsing JSON strings only.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, no specific libraries are used except for the built-in JavaScript functions mentioned above.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing the performance of different parsing and conversion methods.

Now that we've covered the basics, let's talk about alternative approaches:

Other alternatives to these four options include:

* Using a dedicated library like `lodash` for parsing numbers, which can provide additional functionality and flexibility.
* Employing string manipulation techniques, such as regular expressions or substring extraction, to extract relevant parts of input strings.
* Utilizing native support for scientific notation or hexadecimal representations in JavaScript (e.g., `Number('0x...')`) if applicable.

However, these alternatives are not part of this specific benchmark and would require additional code changes to accommodate.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
long eval()	3338739.5 Ops/sec
long parseInt()	3559894.5 Ops/sec
short eval()	3114871.8 Ops/sec
short parseInt()	6563676.0 Ops/sec
short Number class call	6830433.0 Ops/sec
long Number class call	6607553.5 Ops/sec
short JSON.parse	4775817.5 Ops/sec
long JSON.parse	2229019.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

eval vs parseInt vs Number vs JSON.parse (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: long eval() vs long parseInt() vs short eval() vs short parseInt() vs short Number class call vs long Number class call vs short JSON.parse vs long JSON.parse

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

long eval()

long parseInt()

short eval()

short parseInt()

short Number class call

long Number class call

short JSON.parse

long JSON.parse

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):