Benchmark: test math random

Tests:

test1
(Math.random() + 1).toString(36).substring(0)
test2
(Math.random() + 1).toString(36).substring(7)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test1
test2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a simple expression that generates and converts a random number to a base-36 string using the `Math.random()` function. The two test cases differ by their slice operation: one takes the first 5 characters (`substring(0)`), while the other takes the last 5 characters (`substring(7)`).

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. Taking the first 5 characters of a base-36 representation of a random number.
2. Taking the last 5 characters of a base-36 representation of a random number.

**Pros and Cons**

* Taking the first 5 characters:
	+ Pros: might be faster since it requires less slicing, which can be expensive in JavaScript.
	+ Cons: may not accurately represent the distribution of possible values (since it takes only the initial part of the base-36 representation).
* Taking the last 5 characters:
	+ Pros: more representative of the full range of possible values (since it includes the final part of the base-36 representation).
	+ Cons: might be slower due to the additional slicing operation.

**Library and Purpose**

There is no explicitly mentioned library in this benchmark. However, `Math.random()` is a built-in JavaScript function that generates a random number between 0 (inclusive) and 1 (exclusive).

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The use of `toString(36)` and `substring()` is not special to JavaScript, but it's a common pattern used for converting numbers to base-36 strings. These functions are part of the JavaScript standard library.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark, you could consider alternative approaches:

* Using a different data structure or algorithm to generate random numbers and convert them to base-36.
* Using a library like `base36` (a dedicated library for converting between decimal and base-36 strings).
* Optimizing the slicing operation using JavaScript's built-in functions like `slice()` or using a more efficient string manipulation method.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative approach will depend on your specific use case, performance requirements, and desired outcome.

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/103.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 103 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test1	3797816.8 Ops/sec
test2	3787955.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test math random (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: test1 vs test2

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test1

test2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):