Benchmark: typeof number vs. Number.isNan vs. isNan

Tests:

typeof
typeof 5 === 'number'
Number.isNan
Number.isNaN(5)
isNaN
isNaN(5)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
typeof
Number.isNan
isNaN

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
typeof	171385264.0 Ops/sec
Number.isNan	149868560.0 Ops/sec
isNaN	139260496.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test case, specifically designed to compare the performance of three different approaches for checking if a variable is a number: `typeof`, `Number.isNan`, and `isNaN`.

**Test Cases**

There are three individual test cases:

1. **`typeof 5 === 'number'`**: This test case checks if the result of calling `typeof` on the variable `5` is equal to `'number'`.
2. **`Number.isNaN(5)`**: This test case calls the `Number.isNaN()` function with the argument `5`, which returns a boolean value indicating whether the input number is NaN (Not a Number).
3. **`isNaN(5)`**: This test case calls the global function `isNaN()` with the argument `5`.

**Comparison and Options**

The three test cases are designed to compare the performance of these different approaches:

1. **`typeof 5 === 'number'`**:
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward, easy to read.
	* Cons: May incur a slight overhead due to string comparison.
2. **`Number.isNaN(5)`**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, optimized for performance.
	* Cons: Requires the `Number` object to be available in the scope, which may not always be the case.
3. **`isNaN(5)`**:
	* Pros: Global function, widely supported and compatible with older browsers.
	* Cons: May incur a slight overhead due to the global function lookup.

**Library Usage**

None of the test cases explicitly use any JavaScript libraries or frameworks.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The benchmark does not utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax.

**Other Considerations**

When comparing these approaches, it's essential to consider factors like:

* Performance: How fast do each approach execute?
* Readability: Which approach is easiest to read and understand?
* Compatibility: Are the approaches compatible with older browsers or versions of JavaScript?

**Alternatives**

If you need to benchmark similar approaches, you might also want to consider testing:

* `Number.isInteger()`: An alternative for checking if a number is an integer.
* Using a custom implementation for `isNan()` and `isNaN()`, potentially optimized for specific use cases.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific requirements and constraints.

Related benchmarks:

typeof number vs. Number.isNan vs. isNan (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: typeof vs Number.isNan vs isNaN

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

typeof

Number.isNan

isNaN

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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