Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
string to number convert
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Number vs Number.parsefloat vs parseFloat vs parseInt
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Number
var foo = Number('123.456abc');
Number.parsefloat
var foo = Number.parseFloat('123.456abc');
parseFloat
var foo = parseFloat('123.456abc');
parseInt
var foo = Number.parseInt('123.456abc');
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (4)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Number
Number.parsefloat
parseFloat
parseInt
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):
**Overview of the Benchmark** The provided benchmark is designed to test different methods for converting string values to numbers in JavaScript. The benchmark compares the performance of `Number`, `parseInt`, `parseFloat`, and `Number.parseFloat` functions. **Options Compared** 1. **Number**: Converts a string value to an integer by rounding it down to the nearest whole number. 2. **parseInt**: Converts a string value to an integer, allowing for optional radix (base) specification. 3. **parseFloat**: Converts a string value to a floating-point number. 4. **Number.parseFloat**: Similar to `parseFloat`, but specified as a function. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **Number**: * Pros: Simple, widely supported, and can be used for integer conversions. * Cons: Rounds down to the nearest whole number, may lose precision in floating-point conversions. 2. **parseInt**: * Pros: Allows for radix specification, useful for converting strings from other bases (e.g., hexadecimal). * Cons: Can be slower than `Number` due to the optional radix parameter evaluation. 3. **parseFloat**: * Pros: Specifically designed for floating-point conversions, less likely to lose precision. * Cons: May not work as expected if the string is not a valid float (e.g., "abc"). 4. **Number.parseFloat**: * Pros: Similar to `parseFloat`, but explicitly defined as a function, which may improve performance in some cases. * Cons: No significant benefits over using `parseFloat` directly. **Library Usage** None of the provided test cases use any external libraries. **Special JS Features/Syntax** The benchmark uses JavaScript functions and syntax, specifically: 1. Function calls (`Number`, `parseInt`, `parseFloat`, and `Number.parseFloat`) 2. Variable declarations (`var foo = ...;`) 3. String concatenation (`'123.456abc';`) These features are standard in JavaScript and do not require special knowledge to understand. **Other Alternatives** If you want to test similar benchmarks, consider using other methods for converting string values to numbers, such as: 1. `bigint()`: Conversions to integers or BigInts. 2. `Decimal()` libraries: Specialized libraries for decimal arithmetic, which may be faster than native JavaScript conversions. Keep in mind that the specific use case and performance characteristics of your benchmark will influence the choice of alternatives.
Related benchmarks:
To Formatted Number
Format number | Regex vs Code V1.1
Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocaleString vs Custom Formatter vs Pre-created Intl formatter
eweewqe3
Compare String to Number conversion
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?