Benchmark: Native isNaN() vs Custom isNaN method

Tests:

Custom not number
return ("-8A" > 0 || 0 > "-8A");
Custom NaN
return (NaN > 0 || 0 > NaN);
Custom number
return (6 > 0 || 0 > 6);
isNan not number
return isNaN("-8A");
isNan NaN
return isNaN(NaN);
isNaN number
return isNaN(6);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Custom not number
Custom NaN
Custom number
isNan not number
isNan NaN
isNaN 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.

**What is tested in the provided JSON?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net, which compares two approaches: using the native `isNaN()` function and creating a custom implementation of `isNaN()`.

The benchmark tests the performance of these two approaches for different scenarios:

*   Checking if a string is not a number
*   Checking if a value is NaN (Not a Number)
*   Checking if an integer is not a number

**Options compared:**

There are two options being compared:

1.  **Native `isNaN()` function**: This uses the built-in `isNaN()` function in JavaScript, which checks if a value is not a number.
2.  **Custom implementation of `isNaN()`**: This creates a custom implementation of `isNaN()` using simple conditional statements.

**Pros and Cons:**

*   Native `isNaN()` function:
    *   Pros:
        *   Faster execution speed due to built-in optimization
        *   More reliable results, as it is part of the standard library
    *   Cons:
        *   Less flexible and less control over the logic
*   Custom implementation of `isNaN()`:
    *   Pros:
        *   More flexible and allows for custom logic
        *   Can be more readable for certain use cases
    *   Cons:
        *   Slower execution speed due to basic conditional statements

**Library usage:**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON, but `isNaN()` is a built-in function in JavaScript.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

The benchmark does not mention any special JavaScript features or syntax. It only uses standard JavaScript syntax for testing the performance of native functions and custom implementations.

**Alternative approaches:**

Other alternatives to create a custom implementation of `isNaN()` could include:

*   Using a library like [lodash.isNaN()](https://lodash.com/docs/4.17.15#isNaN) or [Math.js](https://mathjs.org/)
*   Implementing a custom function using bitwise operations (e.g., checking for non-numeric values)
*   Utilizing advanced techniques, such as using a try-catch block to check if a value is NaN

However, these alternatives might not be included in the benchmark, and their performance compared to the native `isNaN()` function would need to be evaluated.

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/97.0.4692.99 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 97 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Custom not number	867582912.0 Ops/sec
Custom NaN	2513268.5 Ops/sec
Custom number	869474048.0 Ops/sec
isNan not number	3114765.8 Ops/sec
isNan NaN	2138505.5 Ops/sec
isNaN number	3995744.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Native isNaN() vs Custom isNaN method (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Custom not number vs Custom NaN vs Custom number vs isNan not number vs isNan NaN vs isNaN number

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Custom not number

Custom NaN

Custom number

isNan not number

isNan NaN

isNaN 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):