Benchmark: (Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.pow(10,13))) vs Date.now

Tests:

(Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.pow(10,13)))
(Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.pow(10,13)))
Date.now
Date.now()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
(Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.pow(10,13)))
Date.now

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll provide an explanation of the provided benchmark, its options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The first benchmark definition represents a simple comparison between two functions: `(Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.pow(10,13)))` and `Date.now`. The purpose of this benchmark is to determine which function generates a unique 13-digit key more efficiently.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. `(Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.pow(10,13)))`: This function uses the `Math.random()` function to generate a random number between 0 and `10^13 - 1`, then multiplies it by `10` and takes the floor value using `Math.floor`. The result is an integer representation of a 13-digit key.
2. `Date.now()`: This function returns the timestamp in milliseconds since the Unix Epoch (January 1, 1970, 00:00 UTC). However, due to the nature of timestamps, they are not suitable for generating unique keys.

**Pros and Cons**

The pros and cons of each approach are:

1. `(Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.pow(10,13)))`:
	* Pros:
		+ Generates a truly random 13-digit key.
		+ Can be used to create cryptographically secure keys.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be suitable for generating keys that need to be unique across multiple runs.
		+ Requires careful handling of the generated value to ensure uniqueness and randomness.
2. `Date.now()`:
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and efficient.
		+ Does not require special handling like the first option.
	* Cons:
		+ Not suitable for generating truly random keys due to the nature of timestamps.
		+ May not be suitable for applications requiring high levels of randomness.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two options, consider the requirements of your application:

* If you need a cryptographically secure key that can be generated uniquely across multiple runs, `(Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.pow(10,13)))` may be a better choice.
* If speed and efficiency are more important than randomness, `Date.now()` might be sufficient.

**Library and Special JS Features**

Neither of the options requires any special JavaScript libraries or features. They only rely on built-in JavaScript functions.

However, it's worth noting that using `(Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.pow(10,13)))` may not be suitable for all environments, as `Math.random()` can be affected by various factors such as system time and clock settings.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for generating unique keys include:

* Using a cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator (CSPRNG) like the one provided by the crypto library in Node.js.
* Utilizing a blockchain-based key generation mechanism, which can provide a high level of randomness and uniqueness.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional dependencies or complexity, so it's essential to evaluate their suitability for your specific use case.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:101.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/101.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 101 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
(Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.pow(10,13)))	905738944.0 Ops/sec
Date.now	8750627.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

(Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.pow(10,13))) vs Date.now (version: 1)

Which is best for generating a unique 13 digits key?

Comparing performance of: (Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.pow(10,13))) vs Date.now

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

(Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.pow(10,13)))

Date.now

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):