Benchmark: Math.floor Vs parseInt (random and fixed)

Tests:

parseInt
parseInt(Math.random() * 100, 10)
Math.floor
Math.floor(Math.random() * 100)
parseInt - fixed
parseInt(123456789, 10)
Math.floor - fixed
Math.floor(123456789)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
parseInt
Math.floor
parseInt - fixed
Math.floor - fixed

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its various components.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON defines a benchmark that compares the performance of two JavaScript functions: `parseInt` and `Math.floor`. The benchmark is designed to test these functions with both random and fixed input values. There are no specific libraries or special JS features mentioned in this benchmark definition.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the following options:

1. **`parseInt`**: The built-in `parseInt` function, which attempts to convert a string to an integer.
2. **`Math.floor`**: A built-in JavaScript function that returns the largest integer less than or equal to a given number.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

*   **`parseInt`**:
    *   Pros: Efficient for converting strings to integers, handles negative numbers correctly, and is widely supported.
    *   Cons: Can be slower than `Math.floor` due to string parsing and rounding errors, especially with large input values.
*   **`Math.floor`**:
    *   Pros: Simple, fast, and accurate for integer calculations. It doesn't require explicit string conversion like `parseInt`.
    *   Cons: Not designed specifically for converting strings to integers; may produce incorrect results if the input is not an integer.

**Library Usage**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in this benchmark definition. However, both `parseInt` and `Math.floor` are built-in JavaScript functions that don't require external library usage.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There's no special JS feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to compare the performance of `parseInt` and `Math.floor` with other approaches, here are some alternatives:

1.  **Manual conversion**: Instead of using `parseInt`, you could manually convert a string to an integer by parsing it character by character or using a regex-based approach.
2.  **Other libraries**: You might consider using dedicated number formatting libraries like Moment.js or Numbro for more complex numeric calculations.
3.  **Custom implementations**: Depending on your specific requirements, you might want to implement your own versions of `parseInt` and `Math.floor` to explore performance differences.

In summary, the provided benchmark focuses on comparing the built-in `parseInt` and `Math.floor` functions with both random and fixed input values. The results will help users understand the relative performance characteristics of these two widely used JavaScript functions in different scenarios.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 17_6 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) CriOS/126.0.6478.153 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile iOS 126 on iOS 17.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
parseInt	10384760.0 Ops/sec
Math.floor	10080236.0 Ops/sec
parseInt - fixed	19107810.0 Ops/sec
Math.floor - fixed	18730416.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Math.floor Vs parseInt (random and fixed) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: parseInt vs Math.floor vs parseInt - fixed vs Math.floor - fixed

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

parseInt

Math.floor

parseInt - fixed

Math.floor - fixed

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):