Benchmark: Bitwise floor - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var number = 12.68;

Tests:

Math.floor
var floored = Math.floor(number);
Bitwise
var floored = 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:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for finding the largest integer less than or equal to a given number: using the `Math.floor()` function and using bitwise operations with the bitwise OR operator (`|`).

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines a variable `number` with the value `12.68`. This sets up the input value for both test cases.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code, so we can assume that this benchmark only tests JavaScript performance and not anything related to web page rendering or layout.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark has two test cases:

1. **Math.floor**: The first test case uses the `Math.floor()` function to find the largest integer less than or equal to `number`. This is a built-in JavaScript function that returns an integer value.
2. **Bitwise**: The second test case uses bitwise operations with the bitwise OR operator (`|`) to achieve the same result as `Math.floor()`. Specifically, it uses the expression `number | 0`, which performs a binary right shift of `number` by one bit and then applies a bitwise AND operation with zero. This effectively truncates the decimal part of `number`.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we have two options:

* **Math.floor**: Uses the built-in JavaScript function to find the largest integer less than or equal to `number`.
* **Bitwise**: Uses bitwise operations to achieve the same result as `Math.floor()`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

* **Math.floor**:
	+ Pros:
		- Easy to read and understand.
		- Built-in JavaScript function, so no additional dependencies are needed.
		- Likely to be optimized by modern browsers or engines.
	+ Cons:
		- May have slower performance compared to bitwise operations due to the overhead of function calls.
* **Bitwise**:
	+ Pros:
		- Can be faster than `Math.floor()` for certain use cases (e.g., when working with integers).
		- Reduces the dependency on built-in functions and libraries.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires a good understanding of bitwise operations and their implementation details.
		- May not work correctly for all values or edge cases.

**Library/Dependency**

There is no external library or dependency used in this benchmark, as both test cases only rely on standard JavaScript functionality.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntaxes used in this benchmark. It's a straightforward comparison of two approaches using standard JavaScript constructs.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives to the `Math.floor()` and bitwise operations could include:

* Using a decimal library or module (e.g., Decimal.js) for precise arithmetic.
* Implementing custom rounding algorithms using integer arithmetic.
* Using a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler or runtime optimization techniques to improve performance.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely introduce additional complexity, dependencies, or performance trade-offs compared to the simple `Math.floor()` and bitwise approaches used in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Bitwise floor (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.floor vs Bitwise

Created: 9 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Math.floor

Bitwise

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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