Benchmark: math floor1123121

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

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 21 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	3987574.8 Ops/sec
~~	7666135.5 Ops/sec
n \| n	4026658.5 Ops/sec
n & n	4065721.2 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 21 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark provided evaluates different methods of performing a flooring operation on a given decimal number in JavaScript. The objective is to compare the performance of several approaches to convert a floating-point number, `123456789.6521`, to an integer by rounding it down to the nearest whole number.

### Comparison of Approaches

1. **Math.floor(a)**
   - **Description**: This is the built-in JavaScript function that returns the largest integer less than or equal to a given number.
   - **Pros**: 
     - Readable and widely understood.
     - Explicitly designed for flooring operations, making code maintenance easier.
   - **Cons**:
     - Can be slower than bitwise operations due to function call overhead.

2. **~~a (Double Bitwise NOT)**
   - **Description**: This operation uses the bitwise NOT operator (`~`) two times, effectively converting the number to its integer equivalent by discarding the decimal part.
   - **Pros**:
     - Typically the fastest option among the tested cases.
     - No function overhead, which can lead to improved performance in scenarios requiring multiple flooring operations.
   - **Cons**:
     - Less readable and can be confusing to those unfamiliar with JavaScript bitwise operations.

3. **a | a (Bitwise OR)**
   - **Description**: This uses the bitwise OR operator to convert the floating-point number to an integer by performing a bitwise OR between the number and itself. It effectively floors the number because the operation only keeps the integer part.
   - **Pros**:
     - Faster than calling `Math.floor`, similar to the double NOT approach.
   - **Cons**:
     - Not as clear in intention as `Math.floor`, which may lead to potential readability issues for engineers less accustomed to bitwise operations.

4. **a & a (Bitwise AND)**
   - **Description**: This utilizes the bitwise AND operator on the number itself. As with the previous methods, it effectively converts to an integer by truncating the decimal part.
   - **Pros**:
     - Like the other bitwise methods, it's generally fast, and it avoids function call overhead.
   - **Cons**:
     - Similar readability concerns as the other bitwise operators.

### Performance Results

Based on the latest benchmark results from the test:

- The highest performance was observed with the double bitwise NOT operation (`~~`), which executed around **7,666,135.5 operations per second**.
- The bitwise AND operation (`n & n`) followed closely, with about **4,065,721.25 operations per second**.
- The bitwise OR approach (`n | n`) came in slightly lower at **4,026,658.5 operations per second**.
- The traditional method with `Math.floor` was the slowest, executing about **3,987,574.75 operations per second**.

### Other Considerations

- **Readability vs Performance**: There is a clear trade-off between readability and raw performance. While bitwise operations can be faster, they may reduce the clarity of the code, leading to maintainability challenges. For most scenarios, the difference in speed may be negligible unless this operation is a critical bottleneck in a performance-sensitive application.
- **Use Cases**: Choosing the appropriate method largely depends on the use case. For code that is frequently read and maintained by other engineers or for applications where performance is not critical, using `Math.floor` is advisable. However, in performance-critical sections of code that need flooring many times (like in graphical applications, game development, or data processing), the bitwise approaches are advisable.

### Alternatives
Other alternatives for flooring include:

- **Using `parseInt`:** Converting the number to a string and then back to an integer can floor the value, but it is usually less efficient than the methods tested.
- **Custom functions**: Engineers can write their own flooring logic if specific requirements arise, but using built-in functions or optimizing bitwise methods is generally preferred to ensure compatibility and performance.

In conclusion, the choice of method for flooring numbers in JavaScript should consider performance, readability, and the specific context of use.

Related benchmarks:

math floor1123121 (version: 1)

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

Created: 21 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 21 days ago):