Benchmark: getRandomNumberInRange vs getRandomValueInRange 5000

Script Preparation code:

function getRandomNumberInRange(min = 0, max = 100) {
    return Math.floor(Math.random() * max) + min;
}

function getRandomValueInRange(min = 0, max = 100) {
    const range = max - min + 1;
    const randomBuffer = new Uint32Array(1);
    window.crypto.getRandomValues(randomBuffer);
    const randomNumber = randomBuffer[0];
    const scaledRandomNumber = Math.floor(
        randomNumber / (Math.pow(2, 32) / range)
    );
    return min + scaledRandomNumber;
}

Tests:

getRandomNumberInRange
getRandomNumberInRange(0, 5000)
getRandomValueInRange
getRandomValueInRange(0, 5000)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
getRandomNumberInRange
getRandomValueInRange

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two JavaScript functions: `getRandomNumberInRange` and `getRandomValueInRange`. Both functions are designed to generate random numbers within a specified range.

**Functions Comparison**

1. **getRandomNumberInRange**: This function generates a random integer between the specified minimum and maximum values (inclusive). It uses the `Math.floor(Math.random() * max) + min` formula.
2. **getRandomValueInRange**: This function generates a random floating-point number between the specified minimum and maximum values (inclusive). It uses a more complex approach:
	* Calculates the range size (`range = max - min + 1`)
	* Generates a random integer using `window.crypto.getRandomValues(randomBuffer)`
	* Scales the random value to fit within the desired range
	* Returns the scaled value as a floating-point number

**Comparison Considerations**

The two functions have different design goals and use cases:

* **getRandomNumberInRange** is optimized for generating integers, which can be more efficient in certain scenarios (e.g., when working with discrete data). However, it may not provide the same level of precision as `getRandomValueInRange`.
* **getRandomValueInRange**, on the other hand, generates floating-point numbers, which can be useful in situations where precision is critical (e.g., financial calculations or scientific simulations).

**Pros and Cons**

* **getRandomNumberInRange**:
	+ Pros: Efficient for integer generation, easy to implement.
	+ Cons: May not provide sufficient precision, limited range.
* **getRandomValueInRange**:
	+ Pros: Provides high precision, suitable for floating-point applications.
	+ Cons: More complex implementation, may be slower due to crypto operations.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

The `getRandomValueInRange` function uses the Web Cryptography API (`window.crypto`) to generate random values. This library is used in conjunction with modern JavaScript engines (like Chrome) to provide a secure source of randomness.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need alternative implementations, consider the following:

1. **Math.random()**: A built-in JavaScript function that generates a random float between 0 and 1. You can use this function to generate random numbers within a specific range by scaling and shifting it.
2. **Seedrandom.js**: A lightweight library that provides a simple way to generate random numbers using the seedrandom algorithm.
3. **Crypto-JS**: A JavaScript library that implements various cryptographic algorithms, including pseudorandom number generation.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not offer the same level of precision or security as `getRandomValueInRange`, which relies on Web Cryptography API.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 13) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/113.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 113 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
getRandomNumberInRange	1488759.6 Ops/sec
getRandomValueInRange	159170.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

getRandomNumberInRange vs getRandomValueInRange 5000 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: getRandomNumberInRange vs getRandomValueInRange

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

getRandomNumberInRange

getRandomValueInRange

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):