Benchmark: Math.log10() vs .toString()

Tests:

Math.log10()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(Math.floor(Math.log10(i))); }
.toString()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(num.toString()); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.log10()
.toString()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.6 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.log10()	41607.2 Ops/sec
.toString()	2302937.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test that compares the performance of two approaches: using `Math.log10()` versus `.toString()`. The goal is to determine which approach is faster for this specific use case.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **`Math.log10()`**: This method calculates the base-10 logarithm of a given number.
2. **`.toString()`**: This method converts a number to its string representation using the `toString()` method.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **`Math.log10()`**:
	+ Pros: More concise and efficient for calculating logarithms, as it directly returns the result.
	+ Cons: May not be suitable for converting numbers to strings, as it assumes a specific format.
* **`.toString()`**:
	+ Pros: More versatile, as it can convert numbers to strings in various formats (e.g., scientific notation).
	+ Cons: May be slower than `Math.log10()`, especially for large numbers.

**Library and Purpose**

In the benchmark definition JSON, the library being used is not explicitly mentioned. However, based on the code snippets provided, it's likely that the JavaScript engine or browser is using its built-in `Math` object, which includes the `log10()` method.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are required for this benchmark. The tests only rely on basic arithmetic operations and string conversion.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to reimplement this benchmark with alternative approaches, some possible options could include:

* Using a different logarithmic function (e.g., `Math.log()`) or a library like Math.js.
* Converting numbers to strings using other methods, such as `Number.toString()` or a custom implementation.
* Comparing performance with other JavaScript engines or browsers.

Keep in mind that the results of these alternative approaches may vary due to differences in optimization, interpretation, or execution environments.

For this specific benchmark, MeasureThat.net provides a convenient way to compare the performance of two simple approaches: `Math.log10()` and `.toString()`.

Related benchmarks:

Math.log10() vs .toString() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.log10() vs .toString()

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.log10()

.toString()

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):