Benchmark: Math.floor vs Math.trunc

Script Preparation code:

var num = Math.random() * 100;

Tests:

Trunc
Math.trunc(num);
Floor
Math.floor(num);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Trunc
Floor

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 explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Description**
The benchmark is designed to compare two methods for rounding numbers in JavaScript: `Math.trunc()` and `Math.floor()`. These functions return the largest integer less than or equal to, respectively, the input value.

**Options Compared**

There are only two options being compared:

1. **`Math.trunc(num)`**: This function truncates the decimal part of a number, effectively rounding down to the nearest whole number.
2. **`Math.floor(num)`**: This function returns the largest integer less than or equal to the input value.

**Pros and Cons**

* `Math.trunc()` is generally faster because it uses a simple bitwise operation to truncate the decimal part. However, it may produce slightly different results due to rounding errors.
* `Math.floor()` is more intuitive for some use cases, as it returns the largest integer less than or equal to the input value. However, it can be slower than `Math.trunc()` due to its algorithmic nature.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark only measures the execution time of these two functions, so other factors like memory allocation or function calls are not considered.
* The use of `Math.random()` in the script preparation code ensures that the input value is randomly generated, which helps to eliminate any bias towards one implementation over the other.

**Library Used**
None. This benchmark only uses built-in JavaScript functions (`Math.trunc()` and `Math.floor()`).

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**
No special features or syntax are used in this benchmark.

Now, let's look at some alternative approaches that could be taken to measure these two functions:

1. **Measuring precision**: Instead of measuring execution time, the benchmark could measure the precision of the results produced by `Math.trunc()` and `Math.floor()`. This would involve checking if the results are identical within a certain threshold.
2. **Measuring round-trip time**: The benchmark could measure the total time taken to execute both functions and then return the result using each function, effectively measuring the round-trip time between the two implementations.
3. **Using different inputs**: The benchmark could use different input values (e.g., integers, floats, or complex numbers) to see how the results vary across these inputs.

By exploring alternative approaches, we can gain a deeper understanding of the behavior and performance characteristics of `Math.trunc()` and `Math.floor()`.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/121.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Trunc	4224824.0 Ops/sec
Floor	3987787.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Math.floor vs Math.trunc (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Trunc vs Floor

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Trunc

Floor

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):