Benchmark: fast floor vs floor js vs unsafe floor

Script Preparation code:

var mathFloor = Math.floor;
var random = Math.random;
var unsafeFloor = n => n | 0;
var fastFloor = n => {
    if (n >= 0 && n < 0x80000000) {
      return n | 0;
    }
    if (n > -0x80000000 && n < 0) {
      return (n - 1) | 0;
    }
    return mathFloor(n);
};

Tests:

floor
mathFloor(random()*10);
fast floor
fastFloor(random()*10);
unsafe floor
unsafeFloor(random()*10);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
floor
fast floor
unsafe floor

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 dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches to implementing the `floor` function in JavaScript:

1. `mathFloor`: The built-in `Math.floor` function from the JavaScript Math library.
2. `fastFloor`: A custom implementation that takes advantage of bitwise operations to perform floor calculations more efficiently for certain ranges of input values.
3. `unsafeFloor`: Another custom implementation that uses a simple bitwise operation (`n | 0`) to truncate the decimal part of the number.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares these three options for the following inputs:

* A random integer value between 0 and 9 (inclusive), generated using `Math.random()`.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **mathFloor**:
	* Pros: Well-maintained, widely supported, and easy to use.
	* Cons: May not be optimized for performance in certain scenarios.
2. **fastFloor**:
	* Pros: Optimized for specific ranges of input values, potentially faster than `mathFloor` for those cases.
	* Cons: More complex implementation, may require additional optimization efforts.
3. **unsafeFloor**:
	* Pros: Extremely lightweight and simple implementation.
	* Cons: May not be safe or reliable in all situations (e.g., handling NaN or Infinity values).

**Library and Syntax**

The benchmark uses the JavaScript Math library, which is a built-in library that provides various mathematical functions, including `Math.floor`.

No special JS features or syntax are used in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When implementing performance-critical code like this, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Input value distribution and range
* System architecture (e.g., CPU, memory constraints)
* Algorithmic complexity

In this case, the `fastFloor` implementation takes advantage of bitwise operations, which can be faster for certain ranges of input values. However, its performance may degrade for other input ranges or when dealing with edge cases.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* Using a library like `numjs` or `mathjs`, which provide optimized implementations of various mathematical functions.
* Implementing custom binary search algorithms to find the floor of a number.
* Using assembly language or other low-level programming languages to optimize performance.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require additional expertise and resources.

Related benchmarks:

fast floor vs floor js vs unsafe floor (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: floor vs fast floor vs unsafe floor

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

floor

fast floor

unsafe floor

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):