Benchmark: parseInt vs Number mult

Script Preparation code:

var intA = 42.034;
var strB = "42.034";

Tests:

No conversion
var res = intA * strB;
parseInt
var res = parseInt(intA) * parseInt(strB);
Number
var res = Number(intA) * Number(strB);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
No conversion
parseInt
Number

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided JSON represents a benchmark that tests the performance of three approaches: direct multiplication (`*`), `parseInt`, and `Number`. The goal is to determine which approach yields the best performance.

**Test Case Analysis**

Each test case has a unique `Benchmark Definition` that defines how the input values are prepared. Let's examine each test case:

1. **No Conversion**: The benchmark definition uses the original values: `intA = 42.034` and `strB = "42.034"`. This means the test case will multiply these two values directly without any conversion.
2. **parseInt**: In this test case, both `intA` and `strB` are converted to integers using `parseInt()`, and then multiplied together.
3. **Number**: Similar to the `parseInt` test case, but instead of `parseInt()`, the `Number()` function is used to convert `intA` and `strB` to numbers.

**Pros and Cons**

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

*   **Direct Multiplication (`*`)**:
    *   Pros: Fast and efficient, as it leverages the built-in arithmetic operators.
    *   Cons: May exhibit numerical instability or precision issues due to floating-point representation.
*   **parseInt**:
    *   Pros: Can handle string inputs with an optional radix (base) parameter, which can be useful for parsing numbers in specific formats.
    *   Cons: Slower than direct multiplication due to the additional conversion step and potential overhead of `toInt32()` (more on this later).
*   **Number**:
    +   Pros: Similar to `parseInt`, but with a more flexible radix parameter, making it suitable for parsing decimal numbers or hexadecimal values.
    *   Cons: Also slower than direct multiplication due to the conversion step.

Now that we've discussed the approaches and their pros and cons, let's address the library mentioned in the benchmark:

**Library: `toInt32()`**

In the provided benchmark, there's a mention of `toInt32()`, which is likely a custom function or a polyfill for `Number` that converts numbers to 32-bit integers. This might be used to test performance under specific constraints (e.g., when working with large or small numbers). If this isn't explicitly mentioned in the benchmark, assume it's simply using built-in integer arithmetic.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested or utilized in this particular benchmark. The focus is on comparing performance between direct multiplication and two conversion-based approaches (`parseInt` and `Number`).

Now that we've explored the test cases, let's summarize:

In summary, MeasureThat.net provides a platform to compare the performance of different JavaScript approaches for numerical computations. In this specific benchmark, three approaches are tested: direct multiplication (`*`), `parseInt`, and `Number`. Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages in terms of speed, precision, and robustness. The provided results indicate that direct multiplication is likely the fastest option, followed closely by the `Number` function.

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives or benchmarking JavaScript performance, here are a few options to consider:

*   **Benchmarking frameworks**: Frameworks like WebpageTest, Speedometer, and Benchmark.js provide more comprehensive benchmarks for your application.
*   **Native API comparisons**: Compare native JavaScript APIs (e.g., `BigInt`, `Float64Array`) with built-in types (e.g., `Number`, `String`).
*   **Microbenchmarking libraries**: Libraries like `micro-benchmark` or ` benchmark.js` offer more advanced features for writing and running benchmarks.

By exploring these options, you can gain a deeper understanding of JavaScript performance and optimize your applications accordingly.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
No conversion	11741378.0 Ops/sec
parseInt	5596399.5 Ops/sec
Number	5411771.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

parseInt vs Number mult (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: No conversion vs parseInt vs Number

Created: 7 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

No conversion

parseInt

Number

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):