Benchmark: parse number from string

Tests:

parseInt
const padding = '64px' const num = parseInt(padding)
regex
const padding = '64px' const num = Number(padding.match(/\d*/g)[0])
float
const padding = '"68.08px"' const num = parseFloat(padding)
float int
const padding = '64px' const num = parseFloat(padding)
string parse
const padding = '64' const num = parseInt(padding)
string num
const padding = '64' const num = Number(padding)
string float
const padding = '64' const num = parseFloat(padding)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
parseInt
regex
float
float int
string parse
string num
string float

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents microbenchmarks for parsing numbers from strings in JavaScript. The tests compare different approaches to achieve this goal:

1. **parseInt**: Uses the built-in `parseInt()` function to convert a string to an integer.
2. **regex**: Utilizes regular expressions (regex) to extract and parse a numeric value from a string.
3. **parseFloat**: Uses the built-in `parseFloat()` function to convert a string to a floating-point number.
4. **float**: Similar to `parseFloat`, but without the prefix.
5. **string parse** (aliased as `parseInt` in older browsers): An older implementation of `parseInt` that can handle strings with prefixes like '64px'.
6. **string num** (aliased as `parseFloat`): Similar to `parseFloat`, but optimized for parsing numeric strings without decimal points.
7. **string float**: A variation of `parseFloat` specifically designed for parsing floating-point numbers.

**Options comparison**

Each approach has its pros and cons:

* **parseInt**:
	+ Pros: Fast, widely supported, and easy to use.
	+ Cons: May not work correctly with non-numeric strings or strings with non-standard formatting.
* **regex**:
	+ Pros: Flexible, can handle complex string parsing, and works for most numeric formats.
	+ Cons: Can be slow, requires more code and expertise.
* **parseFloat**:
	+ Pros: Fast, efficient, and suitable for most floating-point number parsing needs.
	+ Cons: May not work correctly with strings containing non-numeric characters.
* **float**: Similar to `parseFloat`, but without the prefix.
* **string parse** (and its aliases): Can handle strings with prefixes like '64px', making it suitable for certain use cases.

In general, the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project. If you need a simple, fast solution that works for most numeric formats, `parseInt` or `parseFloat` might be sufficient. However, if you need to handle more complex string parsing scenarios or require fine-grained control over the parsing process, regex or the optimized versions (`float`, `string num`) might be better suited.

**Libraries and special features**

None of the provided tests rely on external libraries. The built-in JavaScript functions (`parseInt`, `parseFloat`) are used throughout.

However, it's worth noting that some browsers may have additional features or optimizations for parsing numbers from strings, such as:

* **ES6+ `Number()` function**: In modern browsers, using `Number()` can be a more efficient and accurate way to parse numeric strings.
* **WebAssembly-based regex engines**: Some browsers support WebAssembly-based regex engines, which can provide improved performance compared to traditional JavaScript regex implementations.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for parsing numbers from strings in JavaScript include:

* Using a dedicated library like ` numeral.js` or `string-parsing` for more complex string parsing needs.
* Utilizing a third-party library like `regex-optimizer` to optimize and improve regex performance.
* Implementing custom parsing logic using regular expressions, if you have specific requirements that aren't met by the built-in functions.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional complexity, dependencies, or performance overhead, depending on your project's needs.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.114 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
parseInt	5661406.0 Ops/sec
regex	2823005.2 Ops/sec
float	6361408.0 Ops/sec
float int	6886441.5 Ops/sec
string parse	8269890.0 Ops/sec
string num	8626571.0 Ops/sec
string float	8527837.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

parse number from string (version: 4)

Comparing performance of: parseInt vs regex vs float vs float int vs string parse vs string num vs string float

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

parseInt

regex

float

float int

string parse

string num

string float

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):