Benchmark: Number vs + vs parseFloat 235

Tests:

Number
var number = Number("some text 23433");
parseFloat
var parse = parseInt("some text 23433");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Number
parseFloat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into explaining the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of JavaScript `Number()` and `parseFloat()` functions when parsing numeric strings. The test creates a string with mixed characters ("some text 23433") and attempts to parse it as an integer using `parseInt()` or a float using `parseFloat()`. The goal is to determine which function is faster.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Number**: The benchmark definition uses `var number = Number("some text 23433");` to create a new variable named "number". This attempts to parse the input string as an integer.
2. **parseFloat**: The second benchmark definition uses `var parse = parseFloat("some text 23433");` to parse the same input string as a float.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* **Number() vs parseFloat()**: These are the two functions being tested for parsing numeric strings.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Number()**:
	* Pros: Simple, straightforward approach that directly attempts to parse the input string as an integer.
	* Cons: May throw errors if the input string is not a valid integer (e.g., contains non-numeric characters).
2. **parseFloat()**:
	* Pros: More flexible and robust than Number(), as it can handle floating-point numbers with decimal points or non-numeric characters in the string.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the additional parsing step, which involves checking for a decimal point.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, both functions rely on the JavaScript built-in numeric parsing functionality.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark. It's a straightforward test of two built-in functions.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to create a similar benchmark, you could consider using other approaches:

* **Using RegExp**: You could use regular expressions to parse the input string as an integer or float.
* **Manual parsing**: Implement your own manual parsing algorithm for integers and floats.
* **Using a library**: Choose a dedicated numeric parsing library like Decimal.js or Big.js.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely change the benchmark's behavior and may not produce comparable results.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/100.0.4896.127 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 100 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Number	7426497.0 Ops/sec
parseFloat	5478008.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Number vs + vs parseFloat 235 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Number vs parseFloat

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Number

parseFloat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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