Benchmark: Math.random+Math.floor vs crypto.getRandom

Tests:

Math.random() + Math.floor()
Math.random()
crypto.getRandomValues()
crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint32Array(1))[0] / 4294967296
Math.random(Math.random())
Math.random(Math.random())

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.random() + Math.floor()
crypto.getRandomValues()
Math.random(Math.random())

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/112.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 112 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.random() + Math.floor()	6063282.5 Ops/sec
crypto.getRandomValues()	196896.6 Ops/sec
Math.random(Math.random())	3073113.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark definition json represents two test cases: Math.random+Math.floor vs crypto.getRandomValues, and three individual test cases for each of these two main tests.

The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of different approaches for generating random numbers in JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

There are two main options compared:

1. **Math.random() + Math.floor**: This approach generates a random number using `Math.random()` and then uses `Math.floor()` to convert it to an integer.
2. **crypto.getRandomValues()**: This approach uses the Web Cryptography API to generate a cryptographically secure random number.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Math.random() + Math.floor**:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and fast.
	* Cons: Not suitable for generating cryptographically secure random numbers, as it's not designed for security.
2. **crypto.getRandomValues()**:
	* Pros: Generates truly cryptographically secure random numbers, making it suitable for applications requiring high security.
	* Cons: Less widely supported than `Math.random()` and may be slower due to its security-focused nature.

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses the Web Cryptography API (W3C) standard for generating random numbers securely. This library is not specific to MeasureThat.net but rather a widely adopted standard for generating cryptographically secure random numbers in web applications.

**Special JavaScript Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark, as it only focuses on comparing the performance of different approaches for generating random numbers.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to generate truly cryptographically secure random numbers, but `crypto.getRandomValues()` is not suitable due to its slow performance, alternative options include:

1. **OSRNG (Operating System Random Number Generator)**: This API allows you to use the operating system's entropy pool to generate random numbers.
2. **RandomNumberGenerator**: Some programming languages and libraries provide a custom implementation of a cryptographically secure random number generator.

However, keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as widely supported or optimized for web applications as `crypto.getRandomValues()`.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The benchmark preparation code is empty, indicating that MeasureThat.net provides a pre-configured environment for running the benchmarks.

Related benchmarks:

Math.random+Math.floor vs crypto.getRandom (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.random() + Math.floor() vs crypto.getRandomValues() vs Math.random(Math.random())

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.random() + Math.floor()

crypto.getRandomValues()

Math.random(Math.random())

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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