Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
number format parseInt, parsefloat
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Number vs ParseInt vs ParseFloat
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var num = '1234'
Tests:
Number
Number(num)
ParseInt
parseInt(num, 10)
ParseFloat
parseFloat(num)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Number
ParseInt
ParseFloat
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):
Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and analyze the JavaScript microbenchmark provided. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition represents a set of tests that will be executed to measure the performance of different approaches. In this case, we have three test cases: 1. `Number(num)`: Tests the built-in `Number` function to convert a string to a number. 2. `parseInt(num, 10)`: Tests the `parseInt` function with base 10 to convert a string to an integer. 3. `parseFloat(num)`: Tests the `parseFloat` function to convert a string to a floating-point number. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares three different approaches: 1. **Built-in functions (`Number`, `parseInt`, and `parseFloat`)**: These are the default JavaScript functions for converting strings to numbers, integers, or floats. 2. **Alternative implementations**: There is no explicit mention of alternative implementations in this benchmark. However, MeasureThat.net often includes benchmarks that compare different libraries or frameworks. **Pros and Cons** Here's a brief analysis of each approach: 1. **Built-in functions**: * Pros: Simple to use, widely supported, and optimized for performance. * Cons: May not handle all edge cases correctly (e.g., invalid inputs). 2. **Alternative implementations**: Since there is no explicit alternative implementation in this benchmark, we can assume that the built-in functions are being used. **Library Use** There is no library explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's likely that MeasureThat.net includes benchmarks for various libraries or frameworks, such as: * ` BigNumber` (for large numbers) * `Decimal.js` (for precise decimal arithmetic) If you're interested in exploring these alternatives, you can check the MeasureThat.net website for additional benchmarks. **Special JS Features** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. The code snippets provided are simple and straightforward, using only built-in functions. **Benchmark Preparation Code** The preparation code `var num = '1234';` creates a variable `num` with the string value `'1234'`. This is used as input for each test case. **Latest Benchmark Result** The latest benchmark results show the performance of each test case: 1. **Number**: 6882493.5 executions per second 2. **parseInt**: 4272430.5 executions per second 3. **parseFloat**: 4042014.0 executions per second These results suggest that the `Number` function performs best, followed by `parseInt`, and then `parseFloat`. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or libraries for number conversion, here are some options: * `Number()` vs. `BigNumber()`: Compare the performance of built-in `Number()` with a dedicated library like `BigNumber`. * `parseInt()` vs. `Decimal.js`: Evaluate the trade-off between using `parseInt()` and a more precise decimal arithmetic library like `Decimal.js`. Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional complexity or overhead, which can impact performance.
Related benchmarks:
Parse string to number
ParseInt vs Number conversion
Convert String to Number parseInt vs +
string to number convert
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?