Benchmark: math floor112312

Script Preparation code:

var a = 123456789.6521;

Tests:

math.floor
var b = Math.floor(a);
~~
var b = ~~(a)
n | n
var b = a | a;
n & n
var b = a & a;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
math.floor
~~
n \| n
n & n

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 10 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark provided focuses on evaluating different methods of performing a mathematical operation—specifically, flooring a number—in JavaScript. The number being tested is set to `123456789.6521`. The benchmark compares four different approaches to achieve this operation, each represented by a test case.

### Test Options Compared

1. **Math.floor(a)**:
   - **Test Name**: `math.floor`
   - **Description**: This is the built-in JavaScript method that takes a number and returns the largest integer less than or equal to that number.
   - **Pros**: 
     - Clearly expresses intent (flooring a number).
     - Standardized across JavaScript engines.
   - **Cons**: 
     - May be slower than bitwise operators for numerical operations due to its implementation overhead.

2. **~~(a)**:
   - **Test Name**: `~~`
   - **Description**: This is a shorthand technique using bitwise NOT. The expression `~~(a)` effectively performs flooring because the bitwise NOT operator converts the number to a 32-bit signed integer.
   - **Pros**: 
     - Fast execution, often comparable to the fastest methods.
   - **Cons**: 
     - Can lead to unexpected results for very large numbers and for non-integer numbers outside the 32-bit signed integer range due to its behavior with overflow and underflow.
     - Less readable than `Math.floor`.

3. **a | a**:
   - **Test Name**: `n | n`
   - **Description**: This also uses a bitwise operator (bitwise OR) which, like resizing to a 32-bit integer, truncates the decimal values.
   - **Pros**: 
     - Fast execution, similar to bitwise NOT.
   - **Cons**: 
     - Same issues with range and readability as `~~(a)`. It also may not be clearly indicative of its purpose for floor operation, which could lead to maintenance issues in code.

4. **a & a**:
   - **Test Name**: `n & n`
   - **Description**: This uses a bitwise AND operator. Similar to the previous methods, it will result in flooring by truncating the decimal part.
   - **Pros**: 
     - Shares speed characteristics with the other bitwise methods.
   - **Cons**: 
     - The same readability and range issues as the other two bitwise operations. It is not as intuitive as `Math.floor`.

### Benchmark Results

- The results showed:
  - `~~(a)` achieved the highest execution rate at approximately 7.69 million executions per second.
  - `Math.floor(a)` was next with around 4.13 million executions per second, indicating it is relatively slower.
  - The bitwise methods (`a | a` and `a & a`) performed similarly to `Math.floor(a)`, indicating they still have overhead compared to the bitwise NOT.

### Other Considerations

- **Readability vs. Performance**: Choosing between `Math.floor` and the bitwise approaches often comes down to the trade-off between clarity and raw performance. While the bitwise methods are faster, they may not be immediately clear to others reading the code. Using `Math.floor` communicates intent and ensures consistent behavior across different JavaScript engines.

- **Use Cases**: If a developer is specifically dealing with performance-sensitive code, particularly in loops or computationally intensive contexts, the bitwise approaches may be beneficial. For general applications where clarity is essential, `Math.floor` is the safer, more maintainable choice.

- **Alternative Methods**: While the options tested are commonly used, alternatives could include:
  - Using `Math.trunc(a)` for removing decimal portions without flooring, particularly relevant when you only want to remove the fractional part without rounding.
  - Custom implementations or libraries that may abstract away these operations for enhanced readability or functionality, though this shouldn’t generally be necessary for such straightforward calculations.

In summary, the benchmark illustrates the trade-offs between different ways of flooring a number in JavaScript. Ultimately, the choice of method should depend on the context of the application, balancing the needs for performance against readability and maintainability.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
math.floor	4125578.8 Ops/sec
~~	7694969.5 Ops/sec
n \| n	4078093.8 Ops/sec
n & n	4038198.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

math floor112312 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: math.floor vs ~~ vs n | n vs n & n

Created: 10 days ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

math.floor

~~

n | n

n & n

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 10 days ago):