Benchmark: round vs trunc vs floor vs parseFloat

Tests:

trunc
Math.trunc(13.37) Math.trunc(13.67)
round
Math.round(13.37) Math.round(13.67)
floor
Math.floor(13.37) Math.floor(13.67)
parseFloat to int
parseFloat(12.17.toFixed()) parseFloat(12.97.toFixed())

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
trunc
round
floor
parseFloat to int

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case hosted on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares the performance of four different mathematical functions: `Math.trunc()`, `Math.round()`, `Math.floor()`, and `parseFloat()` when used with specific input values.

**Functionality Comparison**

The benchmark tests the execution time of each function for two distinct input values:

1. `trunc`: `Math.trunc(13.37)` and `Math.trunc(13.67)`
2. `round`: `Math.round(13.37)` and `Math.round(13.67)`
3. `floor`: `Math.floor(13.37)` and `Math.floor(13.67)`
4. `parseFloat to int`: `parseFloat(12.17.toFixed())` and `parseFloat(12.97.toFixed())`

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares the performance of these four functions using two different approaches:

1. **Truncation**: Truncates numbers using `Math.trunc()`, which rounds down to the nearest integer.
2. **Rounding**: Rounds numbers using `Math.round()`, which rounds to the nearest even integer.
3. **Flooring**: Floors numbers using `Math.floor()`, which rounds down to the next lower integer.
4. **Floating-point conversion**: Converts floating-point numbers to integers using `parseFloat()` and then truncates or rounds.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Truncation (Math.trunc())**:
	* Pros: Fast, simple, and accurate for exact integer values.
	* Cons: May lose precision when dealing with non-integer inputs or large numbers.
2. **Rounding (Math.round())**:
	* Pros: Handles decimal points and edge cases more accurately than truncation.
	* Cons: Can introduce bias if the midpoint is not a clear "round up" or "round down" decision.
3. **Flooring (Math.floor())**:
	* Pros: Fast, simple, and accurate for finding the next lower integer value.
	* Cons: May lose precision when dealing with non-integer inputs or large numbers.
4. **Floating-point conversion (parseFloat())**:
	* Pros: Handles decimal points accurately, but may introduce additional complexity due to floating-point representation issues.
	* Cons: Can be slower than other approaches and may not always produce accurate results due to rounding errors.

**Library and Syntax Considerations**

None of the provided benchmark test cases use a specific JavaScript library. However, some libraries like jQuery or Lodash might optimize these mathematical functions for performance, potentially affecting the benchmark results.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark. The test cases only rely on standard JavaScript syntax and built-in functions.

**Alternatives to MeasureThat.net**

MeasureThat.net is a unique platform for microbenchmarking JavaScript code. Other alternatives include:

1. **Benchmark.js**: A popular, lightweight library for writing and running benchmarks.
2. **Benchmarks.io**: A cloud-based benchmarking service that allows users to create and run benchmarks on various platforms.
3. **jsPerf**: A built-in browser feature for running performance tests and benchmarks.

These alternatives can be used to create and compare the performance of different JavaScript code snippets, but they might not offer the same level of precision or control as MeasureThat.net's JSON-based benchmarking framework.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
trunc	4947626.0 Ops/sec
round	4973374.5 Ops/sec
floor	5035162.0 Ops/sec
parseFloat to int	1875826.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

round vs trunc vs floor vs parseFloat (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: trunc vs round vs floor vs parseFloat to int

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

trunc

round

floor

parseFloat to int

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):