Benchmark: number ass testing v2

HTML Preparation code:

<!--script src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/iriscouch/bigdecimal.js/v0.6.1/lib/bigdecimal.js"></script-->
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/bignumber.js/9.0.1/bignumber.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/big.js/6.0.3/big.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/decimal.js/10.2.1/decimal.min.js"></script>
<!--script src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/infusion/Fraction.js/v4.0.12/fraction.min.js"></script-->

Tests:

parseint all number
var a = 9999; var b = 9999; (parseInt(a) + parseInt(b)).toString()
parseint all string
var a = '9999'; var b = '9999'; (parseInt(a) + parseInt(b)).toString()
native
var a = 9999; var b = 9999; (a+b).toString()
without parseint
var a = '9999'; var b = '9999'; (+a + +b).toString()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
parseint all number
parseint all string
native
without parseint

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests four different approaches to add two numbers or strings and convert the result to a string:

1. `parseInt(a) + parseInt(b)` (with both inputs as numbers)
2. `parseInt(a) + parseInt(b)` (with one input as a string and the other as a number)
3. `(a+b).toString()` (using the built-in addition operator and then converting to a string)
4. `(+a + +b).toString()` (without using `parseInt` with implicit conversion using unary plus)

**Options compared:**

The benchmark compares the performance of these four approaches:

* **Pros and Cons:**
	+ Approach 1 (`parseInt(a) + parseInt(b)`): Simple and intuitive, but may lead to performance issues if both inputs are large numbers or strings. Pros: easy to understand and implement. Cons: can be slow.
	+ Approach 2 (`parseInt(a) + parseInt(b)` with one input as a string and the other as a number): Similar to approach 1, but adds an extra layer of complexity due to the implicit conversion. Pros: handles both types of inputs. Cons: may lead to performance issues.
	+ Approach 3 `(a+b).toString()`: Uses built-in operators, which can be faster than manual parsing and adding. Pros: concise and efficient. Cons: may not handle edge cases well.
	+ Approach 4 (`(+a + +b).toString()`): Without using `parseInt`, this approach relies on implicit conversion using unary plus. Pros: handles both types of inputs without additional dependencies. Cons: can lead to performance issues due to unnecessary conversions.
* **Other considerations:**
	+ Big.js and big-number.js libraries are used for precise arithmetic operations, which may impact performance in some cases.
	+ Fraction.js is not actually used in any of the benchmark definitions.

**Library descriptions:**

1. **Big.js**: A JavaScript library for arbitrary-precision arithmetic, designed to be fast and efficient.
2. **Big-number.js**: Another JavaScript library for precise arithmetic operations, with a focus on simplicity and ease of use.
3. **Decimal.js**: A JavaScript library for decimal arithmetic, designed to handle precision and rounding issues.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

The benchmark definitions do not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard addition operator (`+`). However, it's worth noting that the `parseInt` function is used in all four approaches, which may have implications for performance and compatibility across different browsers and environments.

**Alternatives:**

If you're looking to optimize this benchmark or create similar ones, consider exploring other JavaScript libraries and techniques, such as:

* Using native WebAssembly arithmetic operations (e.g., with wasm-ast)
* Implementing custom arithmetic algorithms for specific use cases
* Leveraging modern browser features like SIMD instructions (e.g., with Emscripten)

Keep in mind that the best approach will depend on your specific requirements and performance considerations.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/96.0.4664.110 Safari/537.36 Edg/96.0.1054.62

Browser/OS: Chrome 96 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
parseint all number	3687101.8 Ops/sec
parseint all string	3598619.8 Ops/sec
native	139406976.0 Ops/sec
without parseint	140430336.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

number ass testing v2 (version: 0)

- https://github.com/MikeMcl/bignumber.js/tree/v9.0.0 - https://github.com/MikeMcl/big.js/tree/v5.2.2 - https://github.com/MikeMcl/decimal.js/tree/v10.2.0

Comparing performance of: parseint all number vs parseint all string vs native vs without parseint

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

parseint all number

parseint all string

native

without parseint

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):