Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Math.floor vs Math.trunc
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Trunc vs Floor
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var num = Math.random() * 100;
Tests:
Trunc
Math.trunc(num);
Floor
Math.floor(num);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Trunc
Floor
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
8 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/143.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 143 on Linux
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=622252" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Trunc
232.2M/s
Floor
224.2M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Trunc
232,178,672 Ops/sec
Floor
224,219,184 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Description** The benchmark is designed to compare two methods for rounding numbers in JavaScript: `Math.trunc()` and `Math.floor()`. These functions return the largest integer less than or equal to, respectively, the input value. **Options Compared** There are only two options being compared: 1. **`Math.trunc(num)`**: This function truncates the decimal part of a number, effectively rounding down to the nearest whole number. 2. **`Math.floor(num)`**: This function returns the largest integer less than or equal to the input value. **Pros and Cons** * `Math.trunc()` is generally faster because it uses a simple bitwise operation to truncate the decimal part. However, it may produce slightly different results due to rounding errors. * `Math.floor()` is more intuitive for some use cases, as it returns the largest integer less than or equal to the input value. However, it can be slower than `Math.trunc()` due to its algorithmic nature. **Other Considerations** * The benchmark only measures the execution time of these two functions, so other factors like memory allocation or function calls are not considered. * The use of `Math.random()` in the script preparation code ensures that the input value is randomly generated, which helps to eliminate any bias towards one implementation over the other. **Library Used** None. This benchmark only uses built-in JavaScript functions (`Math.trunc()` and `Math.floor()`). **Special JS Feature or Syntax** No special features or syntax are used in this benchmark. Now, let's look at some alternative approaches that could be taken to measure these two functions: 1. **Measuring precision**: Instead of measuring execution time, the benchmark could measure the precision of the results produced by `Math.trunc()` and `Math.floor()`. This would involve checking if the results are identical within a certain threshold. 2. **Measuring round-trip time**: The benchmark could measure the total time taken to execute both functions and then return the result using each function, effectively measuring the round-trip time between the two implementations. 3. **Using different inputs**: The benchmark could use different input values (e.g., integers, floats, or complex numbers) to see how the results vary across these inputs. By exploring alternative approaches, we can gain a deeper understanding of the behavior and performance characteristics of `Math.trunc()` and `Math.floor()`.
Related benchmarks
Math.floor vs bitwise <<
floor() vs trunc() vs bitwise hacks (~~, >> 0, etc) 2
floor vs trunc vs bit shift
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?