Benchmark: Bitwise floor - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var number = 12.68;

Tests:

Math.floor
Math.floor(number);
Bitwise
number | 0

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.floor
Bitwise

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:134.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/134.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 134 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.floor	280272096.0 Ops/sec
Bitwise	310283040.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for finding the largest integer less than or equal to a given number: `Math.floor()` (also known as the "mathematical floor") and bitwise shifting (`number | 0`).

**Options Being Compared**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **Math.floor()**: This is a built-in JavaScript function that returns the largest integer less than or equal to a given number.
2. **Bitwise**: This approach uses bitwise shifting to find the largest integer less than or equal to a given number.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Math.floor():**
	+ Pros:
		- More intuitive and readable code
		- Less prone to errors due to its built-in implementation
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower due to the overhead of function calls
		- May not be as efficient for very large numbers
* **Bitwise:**
	+ Pros:
		- Can be faster for very large numbers due to bitwise operations being more efficient
		- More control over the implementation and potential optimizations
	+ Cons:
		- Requires a good understanding of bitwise operations and their limitations
		- May be less readable and more prone to errors

**Library Usage**

There is no library explicitly used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that `Math.floor()` is a part of the JavaScript standard library.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None are mentioned in the provided code snippets.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following:

* **Performance**: If you need to process very large numbers, bitwise shifting may be faster.
* **Readability and Maintainability**: `Math.floor()` is generally more readable and maintainable due to its built-in implementation.
* **Control and Customization**: If you need fine-grained control over the implementation or want to optimize for specific use cases, bitwise shifting may provide more flexibility.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches you might consider include:

* Using other libraries like `lodash` (which has a `floor()` function) or `mathjs` (which provides mathematical functions including floor)
* Implementing a custom floor function using only bitwise operations
* Using compiler optimizations or profiling tools to determine the most efficient approach for your specific use case.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as straightforward to implement or compare as the original `Math.floor()` and bitwise shifting approaches.

Related benchmarks:

Bitwise floor (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.floor vs Bitwise

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.floor

Bitwise

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):