Benchmark: Math.floor vs |0

Tests:

Math.floor
var a = Math.floor(2+5.5);
|0
var a = (2+5.5)|0;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.floor
\|0

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is essential for optimizing code and ensuring compatibility across different browsers and devices.

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test created using the MeasureThat.net platform. The test compares the performance of two approaches:

1.  **`Math.floor()`**: This function returns the largest integer less than or equal to a given number.
2.  **`|0|`**: This is a bitwise OR operation with 0, which effectively performs integer truncation on the number.

**Comparison**

The test measures the performance of both approaches in JavaScript code:

```javascript
var a = Math.floor(2+5.5);
```

and

```javascript
var a = (2+5.5)|0;
```

Let's analyze these options:

*   **`Math.floor()`**: This approach is straightforward and widely supported across browsers.
    *   Pros:
        *   Easy to understand and implement.
        *   Widely supported by most browsers.
    *   Cons:
        *   May not be the fastest option for certain use cases.

*   **`|0|`**: This approach uses a bitwise OR operation with 0, which is a more aggressive way of integer truncation.
    *   Pros:
        *   Can potentially outperform `Math.floor()` in some cases due to its simplicity and fewer function calls.
    *   Cons:
        *   Less readable code, as it's not immediately clear what the bitwise OR operation does without context.
        *   May not be supported by all browsers.

**Library Considerations**

There is no specific library used in this benchmark. However, if a test case uses a library like `Mathjs` for advanced mathematical operations, it would require careful consideration to ensure compatibility with different versions and browser implementations.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The test does not utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the basic arithmetic operations and bitwise OR operation (`|0|`). Therefore, no additional explanations are necessary.

**Alternatives**

If you need to measure JavaScript performance for a specific use case or optimization goal, consider the following alternatives:

1.  **Benchmarking platforms**: MeasureThat.net is just one example of benchmarking platforms available online. Other popular options include Benchmark.js, JSPerf, and BrowserStack.
2.  **Custom benchmarking scripts**: Write your own custom benchmarking script using a testing framework like Jest or Mocha to ensure optimal performance for your specific use case.
3.  **Profiling tools**: Utilize profiling tools like Chrome DevTools or Firefox Developer Edition to measure the performance of individual components or functions within your JavaScript codebase.

By considering these alternatives and factors, you can create an effective benchmarking strategy tailored to your specific needs and requirements.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:94.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/94.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 94 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.floor	1397829504.0 Ops/sec
\|0	1399009664.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Math.floor vs |0 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.floor vs |0

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.floor

|0

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):