Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
Compare nums2
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
Comparing performance of:
native num vs bigint
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
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>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=502399" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
bigint
192.0M/s
native num
182.3M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
bigint
192,028,560 Ops/sec
native num
182,320,576 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Purpose and Options** The provided benchmark tests two options for performing numerical subtractions in JavaScript: 1. **Native number (native num)**: This option uses regular integers (32-bit or 64-bit) to perform the subtraction. 2. **BigInt**: This option uses BigInt literals (long integer types introduced in ECMAScript 2020) to perform the subtraction. The benchmark aims to measure the performance difference between these two approaches on a specific test case. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **Native Number (native num)**: * Pros: + Typically faster than BigInt literals, as they are not subject to the same precision limitations. + Smaller code size and execution overhead due to simpler arithmetic operations. * Cons: + Limited to 32-bit or 64-bit integers, which may not provide sufficient range for certain use cases. 2. **BigInt**: * Pros: + Provides a fixed-precision integer type that can handle arbitrarily large values without worrying about overflow. * Cons: + Generally slower than native numbers due to the additional precision and overhead required for BigInt literals. + Larger code size and execution overhead due to more complex arithmetic operations. **Library and Special JS Features** There are no libraries mentioned in this benchmark. However, note that `n` is used as a suffix in some of the numeric literals (e.g., `7332420547147466000n`). This indicates that these numbers should be treated as BigInt literals, which is specific to ECMAScript 2020 and later versions. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring other alternatives for numerical subtractions, consider: 1. **BigJS**: A JavaScript library for working with large integers (BigInts) that provides a more extensive set of features and optimizations. 2. **Numjs**: A lightweight JavaScript library for numerical computations that supports a range of data types, including BigInt. Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case and requirements. If you need to handle arbitrarily large integer values or require precise control over precision, BigInt literals might be a suitable option. For general-purpose numerical subtractions with smaller integer ranges, native numbers might provide faster performance and simpler code.
Related benchmarks
Ramda vs. Lodash
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?