Benchmark: parse float - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var strNumber = (Math.random() * 100).toFixed(1);

Tests:

unary
const res = +strNumber;
Number
const res = Number(strNumber);
parseFloat
const res = parseFloat(strNumber)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
unary
Number
parseFloat

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 what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Purpose:**
The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the performance of three different methods for parsing floating-point numbers from a string: unary (`+`), `Number()`, and `parseFloat()`.

**Options Compared:**

1. **Unary (`+`):** This method uses the unary plus operator to convert the string to a number. It's a simple and efficient way to parse strings, but it may not be suitable for all cases (e.g., if the input string contains no decimal point).
2. **Number():** This method uses the `Number()` function to convert the string to a number. This function is more robust than the unary plus operator and can handle a wider range of input formats.
3. **parseFloat():** This method uses the `parseFloat()` function to parse the string as a floating-point number. It's similar to `Number()`, but it only parses up to the first decimal point.

**Pros and Cons:**

* Unary (`+`):
	+ Pros: Simple, fast, and lightweight.
	+ Cons: May not work correctly for all input formats (e.g., strings with no decimal point).
* Number():
	+ Pros: More robust than unary plus operator, can handle a wider range of input formats.
	+ Cons: May be slower than unary plus operator due to additional function call overhead.
* parseFloat():
	+ Pros: Similar to `Number()`, but only parses up to the first decimal point.
	+ Cons: May not be suitable for parsing strings with multiple decimal points.

**Library/Function Used:**
None of these methods rely on a specific library or framework. They are built-in JavaScript functions that can be used by any JavaScript application.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark. The focus is solely on comparing the performance of different parsing methods.

**Other Alternatives:**

* Other methods for parsing floating-point numbers from strings, such as using a regex pattern or a custom function.
* Using a library like Math.js or Decimal.js to perform floating-point arithmetic.

In terms of best practices, the benchmark is well-structured and easy to follow. It's also clear that the goal is to compare the performance of different parsing methods in a fair and controlled environment.

As for potential improvements:

* Consider adding more test cases to cover additional input formats or edge cases.
* Use a more robust and consistent method for reporting results, such as using a JSON object with standardized properties.
* Consider running the benchmark on multiple platforms or devices to ensure that the results are representative of different user environments.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 23 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:131.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/131.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
unary	1371008384.0 Ops/sec
Number	1431997952.0 Ops/sec
parseFloat	30909050.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

parse float (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: unary vs Number vs parseFloat

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

unary

Number

parseFloat

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):