Benchmark: Compare nums - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

native num
var a = 100; var b = 200000; var c = a > b;
bigint
var a = 100n; var b = 200000n; var c = a > b;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native num
bigint

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
native num	170883456.0 Ops/sec
bigint	179359520.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided Benchmark Definition JSON contains information about the benchmark being run. However, in this case, it is empty, which means that no specific script or code needs to be prepared for execution.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Native Num**: This test case compares two numbers using the standard comparison operator (`>`). The variables `a` and `b` are assigned values of 100 and 200000, respectively. The variable `c` is set to the result of the comparison between `a` and `b`.
2. **BigInt**: This test case also compares two numbers, but this time using BigInts (64-bit integers). The variables `a` and `b` are assigned values of 100n and 200000n, respectively. The variable `c` is set to the result of the comparison between `a` and `b`.

**Comparison**

The test case compares two approaches:

1. **Native Num**: This approach uses standard JavaScript numbers (32-bit integers). It's a widely supported and efficient way to perform comparisons.
2. **BigInt**: This approach uses BigInts, which are 64-bit integers. They provide more precision and range than standard JavaScript numbers.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Native Num**
	* Pros:
		+ Widely supported by most browsers
		+ Fast execution
	* Cons:
		+ Limited precision (32-bit integers)
		+ May lead to overflow or underflow issues with very large numbers
2. **BigInt**
	* Pros:
		+ Provides more precision and range than standard JavaScript numbers
		+ Handles larger numbers without overflowing
	* Cons:
		+ Less widely supported by older browsers (Internet Explorer, older Chrome/Firefox versions)
		+ May require additional code to handle compatibility issues

**Library: BigInt**

The `BigInt` library is a part of the ECMAScript Standard and provides support for arbitrary-precision integers. It's used in modern JavaScript environments to perform calculations with very large numbers.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

In this case, there are no special features or syntax being tested.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to test other approaches or alternatives, here are a few options:

1. **Integer**: Compare using standard integers (32-bit). This would be similar to the `Native Num` approach.
2. **Float**: Compare using floating-point numbers (64-bit). This would provide more precision than both standard JavaScript numbers and BigInts.
3. **Custom implementation**: Write your own custom comparison function or algorithm to test specific use cases.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as widely supported or efficient as the original approaches, so it's essential to weigh the pros and cons before choosing an alternative.

Related benchmarks:

Compare nums (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: native num vs bigint

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

native num

bigint

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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