Benchmark: Math.random vs crypto.getRandom

Tests:

Math.random()
Math.random()
crypto.getRandomValues()
crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint32Array(1))[0] / 4294967296

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.random()
crypto.getRandomValues()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The main goal of this benchmark is to compare two different methods for generating random numbers in JavaScript: `Math.random()` and `crypto.getRandomValues()`. The focus is on measuring the performance differences between these two approaches.

**Options compared:**

Two options are being compared:

1. **`Math.random()`**: This method uses a pseudorandom number generator (PRNG) that relies on an internal state, which is updated on each call to `random()`.
2. **`crypto.getRandomValues()`**: This method uses the operating system's entropy pool to generate cryptographically secure random numbers.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **`Math.random()`**:
	+ Pros: Easy to use, widely supported across browsers.
	+ Cons: PRNG can produce predictable patterns if not used carefully; may not be suitable for applications requiring high-security randomness.
* **`crypto.getRandomValues()`**:
	+ Pros: Provides cryptographically secure random numbers, suitable for high-security applications; less likely to produce predictability issues.
	+ Cons: Requires access to the operating system's entropy pool, which can be affected by various factors (e.g., CPU usage, disk I/O); may not be supported in all browsers.

**Library and purpose:**

In this benchmark, `crypto` is a built-in Node.js module that provides cryptographic functions, including `getRandomValues()`. This method uses the operating system's entropy pool to generate random numbers.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None are mentioned in this specific benchmark. However, if you're interested in exploring other special features or syntax, some examples include:

* Async/await syntax for handling promises
* Modules (ES6) vs CommonJS module imports/export
* ES6 classes and prototypes

**Other alternatives:**

For generating random numbers, you may consider using external libraries like:

* `random-js`: A widely used JavaScript library for generating pseudorandom numbers.
* `simple-random`: Another popular JavaScript library for generating simple random numbers.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be specifically designed for security or cryptographically secure randomness, but rather focus on providing a convenient and easy-to-use API for random number generation.

It's worth noting that the choice of random number generator depends on the specific requirements of your application. If you need high-security randomness, `crypto.getRandomValues()` is likely the better option. For general-purpose applications, `Math.random()` might be sufficient, but with awareness of its limitations and potential predictability issues.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.random()	9112020.0 Ops/sec
crypto.getRandomValues()	486314.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Math.random vs crypto.getRandom (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.random() vs crypto.getRandomValues()

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.random()

crypto.getRandomValues()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):