Benchmark: string to number convert

Tests:

Number
var foo = Number('123.456abc');
Number.parsefloat
var foo = Number.parseFloat('123.456abc');
parseFloat
var foo = parseFloat('123.456abc');
parseInt
var foo = Number.parseInt('123.456abc');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Number
Number.parsefloat
parseFloat
parseInt

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark is designed to test different methods for converting string values to numbers in JavaScript. The benchmark compares the performance of `Number`, `parseInt`, `parseFloat`, and `Number.parseFloat` functions.

**Options Compared**

1. **Number**: Converts a string value to an integer by rounding it down to the nearest whole number.
2. **parseInt**: Converts a string value to an integer, allowing for optional radix (base) specification.
3. **parseFloat**: Converts a string value to a floating-point number.
4. **Number.parseFloat**: Similar to `parseFloat`, but specified as a function.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Number**:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and can be used for integer conversions.
	* Cons: Rounds down to the nearest whole number, may lose precision in floating-point conversions.
2. **parseInt**:
	* Pros: Allows for radix specification, useful for converting strings from other bases (e.g., hexadecimal).
	* Cons: Can be slower than `Number` due to the optional radix parameter evaluation.
3. **parseFloat**:
	* Pros: Specifically designed for floating-point conversions, less likely to lose precision.
	* Cons: May not work as expected if the string is not a valid float (e.g., "abc").
4. **Number.parseFloat**:
	* Pros: Similar to `parseFloat`, but explicitly defined as a function, which may improve performance in some cases.
	* Cons: No significant benefits over using `parseFloat` directly.

**Library Usage**

None of the provided test cases use any external libraries.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The benchmark uses JavaScript functions and syntax, specifically:

1. Function calls (`Number`, `parseInt`, `parseFloat`, and `Number.parseFloat`)
2. Variable declarations (`var foo = ...;`)
3. String concatenation (`'123.456abc';`)

These features are standard in JavaScript and do not require special knowledge to understand.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to test similar benchmarks, consider using other methods for converting string values to numbers, such as:

1. `bigint()`: Conversions to integers or BigInts.
2. `Decimal()` libraries: Specialized libraries for decimal arithmetic, which may be faster than native JavaScript conversions.

Keep in mind that the specific use case and performance characteristics of your benchmark will influence the choice of alternatives.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/110.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 110 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Number	15683140.0 Ops/sec
Number.parsefloat	10883590.0 Ops/sec
parseFloat	10124972.0 Ops/sec
parseInt	15682130.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

string to number convert (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Number vs Number.parsefloat vs parseFloat vs parseInt

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Number

Number.parsefloat

parseFloat

parseInt

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):