var x = Math.random() * 100000000;
var y;
y=Math.floor(x);
y=Math.round(x)
y=(0.5 + x) << 0;
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Math.floor(x); | |
Math.round(x) | |
(0.5 + x) << 0; |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Math.floor(x); | 349444768.0 Ops/sec |
Math.round(x) | 352376544.0 Ops/sec |
(0.5 + x) << 0; | 347423904.0 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.
Benchmark Description
The website MeasureThat.net provides a platform for users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The current benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different ways to round a number:
Math.floor(x)
Math.round(x)
(0.5 + x) << 0
Options Compared
The benchmark tests the performance of each option by modifying the JavaScript code as follows:
Math.floor(x)
, the code is simply y = Math.floor(x);
.Math.round(x)
, the code is y = Math.round(x);
.(0.5 + x) << 0
, the code is y = (0.5 + x) << 0;
.Pros and Cons of Each Approach
Math.floor(x)
and handles fractional inputs correctly.Math.round(x)
, as it uses a bitwise shift instead of a rounding operation.Library Used
The benchmark does not explicitly mention any libraries. However, the use of Math
functions suggests that the JavaScript implementation is standard.
Special JS Feature or Syntax
None mentioned in this specific benchmark.
Other Considerations
When implementing these options, developers should be aware of potential edge cases, such as:
(0.5 + x) << 0
Math.round(x)
Math.floor(x)
Alternative Approaches
If the benchmark's goal is to compare rounding performance with additional features, consider the following alternatives:
Math.round(x)
or (0.5 + x) << 0
to compare floating-point numbers with tolerance.Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional complexity and trade-offs, so choose them only if necessary for your specific use case.