Benchmark: parseInt vs Number addition

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

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/141.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 141 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
No conversion	272133536.0 Ops/sec
parseInt	177561504.0 Ops/sec
Number	268983936.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, the options being compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between three approaches: concatenating strings directly (`"No conversion"`), using `parseInt()` to convert a string to an integer (`"parseInt"`), and using `Number()` to achieve the same conversion (`"Number"`).

**Options Being Compared**

1. **Direct Concatenation**: This approach involves adding two numbers as strings, which will result in creating a new string object.
2. **`parseInt()`**: This method converts a string to an integer by parsing the numeric value within the string. It's specific to integers and can throw errors if the input is not a valid integer.
3. **`Number()`**: Similar to `parseInt()`, but it returns a number instead of throwing an error if the conversion fails.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Direct Concatenation**
	* Pros: Simple, no additional library or function call required.
	* Cons: Creates a new string object, which can lead to performance issues with large numbers of concatenations.
2. **`parseInt()`**
	* Pros: Fast, as it's implemented in native code and doesn't require JavaScript engine parsing.
	* Cons: Only works for integers, throws errors if input is not a valid integer, and requires an additional function call.
3. **`Number()`**
	+ Pros: Fast, similar to `parseInt()`, but returns a number instead of throwing an error if conversion fails.
	+ Cons: May be slower than `parseInt()` due to the JavaScript engine's parsing overhead.

**Library Used**

None explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's worth noting that `Number()` and `parseInt()` are built-in JavaScript functions, so no external library is required.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. It only involves basic arithmetic operations and string concatenation.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to test other approaches, you could consider:

* Using a regular expression to extract the numeric value from the strings.
* Using a library like Lodash (`_toString`) to perform the conversion and addition.
* Testing a more complex scenario with multiple conversions or operations.
* Comparing performance with different string encoding formats (e.g., UTF-8 vs. ASCII).

The benchmark's simplicity makes it easy to understand and compare the performance of these three approaches, but exploring alternative scenarios could provide additional insights into the intricacies of JavaScript performance optimization.

Related benchmarks:

parseInt vs Number addition (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: No conversion vs parseInt vs Number

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

No conversion

parseInt

Number

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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