Benchmark: Compare nums1 - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

native num
var a = 7332420547147466000; var b = 7332420547147466001; var c = a > b;
bigint
var a = 7332420547147466000n; var b = 7332420547147466001n; 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	180341632.0 Ops/sec
bigint	184108320.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help explain what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares two ways of performing numerical comparisons in JavaScript: using native numbers (`Number`) and using BigInt (a built-in type introduced in ECMAScript 2020). The goal is to determine which method is faster and more efficient for large number comparisons.

**Native Numbers vs. BigInt**

In the provided benchmark, we have two test cases:

1. **"native num"**: This test case uses native numbers (`Number`) to perform a comparison between two large integers.
2. **"bigint"**: This test case uses BigInt (a built-in type) to perform the same comparison.

**Comparison Options**

The options being compared are:

* Native Numbers (`Number`): This is the traditional way of representing numbers in JavaScript. It's a 64-bit floating-point number, which means it can handle very large numbers but may not be suitable for cryptographic or high-precision applications.
* BigInt: This is a new type introduced in ECMAScript 2020, designed specifically for high-performance integer arithmetic. It uses a fixed-size representation (either 32 bits or 64 bits, depending on the platform) and provides more efficient operations than native numbers for large integers.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Native Numbers (`Number`)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Widely supported by most JavaScript engines.
		- Easy to implement.
		- Good performance for small to medium-sized numbers.
	+ Cons:
		- May overflow or lose precision for very large numbers.
		- Not suitable for cryptographic or high-precision applications.
* **BigInt**:
	+ Pros:
		- Optimized for high-performance integer arithmetic.
		- Suitable for cryptographic and high-precision applications.
		- Provides more accurate results than native numbers for large integers.
	+ Cons:
		- May not be supported by older JavaScript engines (e.g., Internet Explorer).
		- Requires careful handling of edge cases (e.g., overflow, underflow).

**Library Usage**

There is no library used in this benchmark. The test cases only involve standard JavaScript syntax.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark uses the `n` suffix to denote BigInt literals, which is a new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020. This allows developers to explicitly specify that they want to use BigInt for integer operations.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to compare large integers but don't have access to BigInt, some alternative approaches include:

* Using a library like `big-integer` or `decimal.js`, which provide arbitrary-precision arithmetic.
* Implementing your own custom arithmetic functions using bit manipulation and bitwise operations.
* Using a language like C++ or Rust, which offer more efficient integer arithmetic capabilities.

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs, and the choice of method ultimately depends on the specific requirements of your project.

Related benchmarks:

Compare nums1 (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):