Benchmark: Truncate - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var x = Math.random() * 100000000;
var y;

Tests:

Math.trunc
y = Math.trunc(x);
Bitwise OR
y = x | 0;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.trunc
Bitwise OR

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its findings.

**What is tested on the provided JSON?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, which aims to measure the performance of different ways to truncate (round down) a number in JavaScript. There are two test cases:

1. `Math.trunc`: This tests the built-in `Math.trunc` function, which truncates a number towards zero.
2. `Bitwise OR`: This tests the bitwise OR operation (`|`) with a value of 0, effectively truncating the number.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of two different approaches:

1. `Math.trunc`
2. `Bitwise OR` (with a value of 0)

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

* `Math.trunc`:
	+ Pros:
		- Well-established function, widely supported across browsers.
		- Generally faster than bitwise operations.
	+ Cons:
		- May not be as efficient as native code for large numbers or high-performance applications.
* `Bitwise OR` (with a value of 0):
	+ Pros:
		- Can be optimized by the browser's JIT compiler, potentially leading to better performance.
		- Can be useful in certain scenarios where `Math.trunc` is not available or supported.
	+ Cons:
		- May require additional computations to achieve similar results as `Math.trunc`.
		- Less intuitive and less readable for many developers.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark assumes that the input value (`x`) is a large number, which may affect the performance difference between these two approaches. For smaller inputs, `Math.trunc` might be sufficient.
* The use of bitwise operations can lead to issues with overflow or underflow errors if not handled properly.

**Library usage**

There is no library used in this benchmark.

**Special JS features/syntax**

None mentioned.

Now, let's move on to the latest benchmark result:

The benchmark was run on two different browsers (Safari 15) and yielded slightly different results:

* `Bitwise OR` (with a value of 0): 4951 executions per second
* `Math.trunc`: 2701 executions per second

This suggests that the built-in `Math.trunc` function might not be as efficient as expected in this particular scenario. However, it's essential to note that these results may vary depending on the specific use case and input values.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for truncating numbers, some other options include:

* Using a library like [js-integer](https://github.com/mathiasanders/js-integer), which provides a more efficient way to work with large integers.
* Implementing a custom truncation function using bitwise operations or other native code optimizations.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have their own trade-offs and performance characteristics, so it's crucial to evaluate them based on your specific requirements.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/15.2 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 15 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.trunc	2701083.0 Ops/sec
Bitwise OR	4951040.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Truncate (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.trunc vs Bitwise OR

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.trunc

Bitwise OR

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):