Benchmark: parseInt vs Math.trunc

Script Preparation code:

var num = Math.random() * 100;

Tests:

Trunc
Math.trunc(num);
parseInt
parseInt(num);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Trunc
parseInt

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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and analyzed.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is in JSON format, specifying:

1. **Name**: The name of the benchmark, which is "parseInt vs Math.trunc".
2. **Description**: No description is provided.
3. **Script Preparation Code**: A JavaScript code snippet that generates a random number (`num`) between 0 and 100 using `Math.random() * 100`.
4. **Html Preparation Code**: No HTML code is specified.

The script preparation code sets up the test case by generating a random number, which will be used in both benchmarking functions.

**Individual Test Cases**

Two individual test cases are defined:

1. **Trunc**: This test case executes the `Math.trunc(num)` function.
2. **parseInt**: This test case executes the `parseInt(num)` function.

Both test cases use the same randomly generated number (`num`) as input.

**Comparison being tested**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two functions:

1. **`Math.trunc()`**: A built-in JavaScript function that returns the largest integer less than or equal to the given number.
2. **`parseInt()`**: A built-in JavaScript function that parses a string as an integer, returning the integer value.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **`Math.trunc()`**: Pros:
    *   Typically faster than `parseInt()`, as it's a simple rounding operation rather than parsing a string.
    *   More efficient for large numbers or when exactness is not crucial.
*   **`parseInt()`**: Pros:
    *   May be preferred over `Math.trunc()` if the input string represents an integer value (e.g., "123"), as it handles leading zeros correctly.
    *   Useful in situations where the input may contain non-numeric characters.

Cons:

*   **`Math.trunc()`**:
    *   Does not handle decimal points or fractional parts, which can be a limitation for certain use cases.
    *   May not work correctly with negative numbers or very large integers.
*   **`parseInt()`**:
    *   Can be slower than `Math.trunc()`, especially for simple rounding operations.

Other considerations:

*   **Library usage**: Neither test case uses any external libraries or dependencies. The functions being compared are part of the standard JavaScript library.
*   **Special JS features**: No special JavaScript features or syntax is used in these benchmarking cases.
*   **Alternatives**:
    *   **Other rounding functions**: `Number.EPSILON` can be used to check for floating-point precision issues when using `Math.trunc()`.
    *   **Alternative parsing libraries**: Libraries like ` numeral.js` offer more advanced parsing features and support for different number formats.

In summary, the benchmark is testing the performance of two fundamental JavaScript functions: `Math.trunc()` and `parseInt()`. The results will help users determine which function to use depending on their specific requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 27 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Trunc	6309978.0 Ops/sec
parseInt	5984110.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

parseInt vs Math.trunc (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Trunc vs parseInt

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Trunc

parseInt

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):