Benchmark: Math.max/min vs if vs ternary operatorsd

Script Preparation code:

this.number = Math.random() * 1000;

Tests:

~~
return ~~this.number;
|
return this.number | 0;
floor
return Math.floor(this.number);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
~~
\|
floor

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 definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark is designed to compare three different approaches for achieving the same mathematical result:

1. **~~ (Ternary Minus)**: A bitwise operation that rounds the input value to the nearest integer, performing a "signed shift" on it.
2. **| (Bitwise OR)**: A bitwise operation that performs a "signed shift" on the input value, effectively rounding it to the nearest integer.
3. **Math.floor()**: A function from the JavaScript Math library that returns the largest integer less than or equal to the input value.

**Options Comparison:**

The pros and cons of each approach are:

* **~~ (Ternary Minus)**:
	+ Pros: Simple, fast, and works well for small integers.
	+ Cons: May not work correctly for large integers or non-integer values, as it relies on the sign bit being propagated through the bitwise shift operation. Additionally, it's a relatively obscure operator in JavaScript.
* **| (Bitwise OR)**:
	+ Pros: Works well for both positive and negative integers, and is more robust than ~~ for larger inputs.
	+ Cons: May be slower than ~~ due to the overhead of performing a bitwise OR operation.
* **Math.floor()**:
	+ Pros: Reliable, efficient, and widely supported. It's also the most straightforward approach to use when you need to round down to the nearest integer.
	+ Cons: Requires importing the Math library or using it as a function call.

**Libraries and Special JS Features:**

None of the test cases rely on any external libraries beyond JavaScript's built-in functionality, which is sufficient for this benchmark.

There are no special JavaScript features being tested in these benchmarks. However, it's worth noting that some older browsers might have issues with bitwise operations or signed shifts due to their implementation details.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you want to explore alternative approaches for rounding numbers in JavaScript, consider the following options:

* Using a different library like `lodash`'s `floor` function
* Utilizing the `Number.EPSILON` constant to determine the smallest representable value in floating-point arithmetic
* Implementing your own rounding algorithm using bitwise operations or decimal arithmetic

Keep in mind that these alternatives might introduce performance overhead, memory usage, or dependencies on external libraries. Always profile and test your code to ensure it meets your requirements.

For this benchmark specifically, the focus is on comparing the efficiency of different rounding approaches within JavaScript's built-in capabilities.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
~~	1438144256.0 Ops/sec
\|	1436363008.0 Ops/sec
floor	9419157.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Math.max/min vs if vs ternary operatorsd (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: ~~ vs | vs floor

Created: 11 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

~~

|

floor

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):