Benchmark: parseInt vs Number

Tests:

parse
parseInt('1603915652', 10)
Number
Number('1603915652')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
parse
Number

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:136.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/136.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 136 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
parse	1966720896.0 Ops/sec
Number	1975203584.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition specifies two different ways to convert a string to an integer: using `parseInt` and `Number`. The first one uses the `parseInt` function with a radix of 10, which means it will attempt to parse the string as a decimal number.

```javascript
// parseInt example
console.log(parseInt('1603915652', 10)); // outputs: 1603915652

// Number example
console.log(Number('1603915652')); // outputs: 1603915652
```

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **parseInt**: Uses the `parseInt` function with a radix of 10 to convert the string to an integer.
2. **Number**: Uses the built-in `Number` function to convert the string to an integer.

**Pros and Cons**

* **parseInt**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster for very large integers, as it avoids the overhead of creating a Number object and uses a simple radix-based parsing algorithm.
	+ Cons: Can fail if the input string is not in the correct format (e.g., if it contains non-numeric characters) or if the radix is not specified correctly. Additionally, `parseInt` can be slower than `Number` for small integers due to its overhead.
* **Number**:
	+ Pros: More robust and safer, as it automatically handles formatting issues and avoids the need to specify a radix. It's also generally faster than `parseInt`.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than `parseInt` for very large integers due to its object creation overhead.

**Library/Function Used**

* **Number**: The built-in JavaScript function `Number()` uses the ECMAScript specification for parsing numeric literals, which includes a more robust implementation of integer conversion compared to `parseInt`.

There are no special JS features or syntax being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to convert a string to an integer, you can also use other functions like:

* **BigInt**: For very large integers, you can use the `BigInt` function, which provides a more efficient and robust way of working with integers.
* **parseInt() with radix 0**: Some versions of JavaScript allow using `parseInt()` with a radix of 0, which will attempt to parse the string as an integer using heuristics (e.g., treating '0' as an integer).

However, these alternatives are not directly comparable to `Number` and `parseInt`, as they have different use cases and performance characteristics.

Related benchmarks:

parseInt vs Number (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: parse vs Number

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

parse

Number

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):