Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
isFinite vs isNaN
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
isFinite vs isNaN
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Registered User
Go to the latest result
Tests:
isFinite
Number.isFinite(123)
isNaN
Number.isNaN(123)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
isFinite
isNaN
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/136.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 136 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=607306" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
isFinite
267.7M/s
isNaN
265.9M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
isFinite
267,699,808 Ops/sec
isNaN
265,904,432 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and its test cases to understand what's being tested. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark called "isFinite vs isNaN". This benchmark compares the performance of two different methods for checking if a number is finite or not: `Number.isFinite()` and `Number.prototype.isNaN()`. In other words, it tests which method is faster for determining whether a given number is either finite (i.e., not NaN) or infinite. **Options compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **`Number.isFinite(123)`**: This option checks if the number 123 is finite by using the `isFinite()` method. 2. **`Number.prototype.isNaN(123)`**: This option checks if the number 123 is NaN (Not a Number) by using the `isNaN()` method, which is a property of the Number prototype. **Pros and cons** Here are some pros and cons of each approach: 1. **`Number.isFinite(123)`**: * Pros: It's a more explicit way to check for finiteness. * Cons: It may be slower than using `isNaN()` because it requires a function call and additional checks. 2. **`Number.prototype.isNaN(123)`**: * Pros: It's faster and more efficient, as it only requires accessing the `NaN` property on the Number prototype. * Cons: The method name might be less intuitive for some developers. In general, using `isNaN()` is a good practice when working with numbers in JavaScript, but using `isFinite()` can provide additional clarity and explicitness in certain situations. **Library** There is no specific library used in this benchmark. However, the `Number` object and its prototype (`Number.prototype`) are part of the JavaScript standard library. **Special JS feature or syntax** This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's already mentioned. Both `isFinite()` and `isNaN()` are built-in methods that have been available in JavaScript since its inception. **Other alternatives** Some alternative ways to check for finiteness include: 1. **`Number.EPSILON`**: This is a small value that can be used to determine whether two numbers are close enough to be considered equal (i.e., not NaN). However, this approach requires careful handling and is generally less reliable than using `isFinite()` or `isNaN()`. 2. **`Math.abs(x) === x`**: This method checks if the absolute value of a number equals the original value, which can be used to detect NaN values. Keep in mind that these alternatives may not provide the same level of clarity and readability as using the built-in `isFinite()` or `isNaN()` methods.
Related benchmarks
Number.isInteger() vs typeof
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?