Benchmark: test ipsum - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<table>
  <tr>
    <td id="title">Title</td>
    <td id="url">URL</td>
  </tr>
</table>

Script Preparation code:

let roundedNumber01 = 0;
let roundedNumber02 = 0;

function customRoundA(number) {
    if (number - Math.floor(number) >= 0.5) {
        return Math.ceil(number);
    } else {
        return Math.floor(number);
    }
}

function customRoundB(number) {
    return Math.round(number + Number.EPSILON);
}

Tests:

A
roundedNumber01 = customRoundA(3.7); roundedNumber02 = customRoundA(2.2);
B
roundedNumber01 = customRoundB(3.7); roundedNumber02 = customRoundB(2.2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
A
B

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/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.3.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

1.1M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ A	1,092,390 Ops/sec
B	1,070,796 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested, compared, and analyzed in the context of MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a JavaScript function that rounds numbers to the nearest integer using two different approaches:

1. `customRoundA(number)`: This function uses an if-else statement to check if the fractional part is greater than or equal to 0.5. If so, it returns the ceiling value; otherwise, it returns the floor value.
2. `customRoundB(number)`: This function uses `Math.round()` with a small epsilon value (`Number.EPSILON`) to simulate rounding to the nearest integer.

**Options being compared**

The two options being compared are:

* `customRoundA` (Rounded up if the fractional part is greater than or equal to 0.5, otherwise rounded down)
* `customRoundB` (Rounded using `Math.round()` with a small epsilon value)

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. `customRoundA`:
	* Pros: Simple implementation, easy to understand.
	* Cons: May produce incorrect results for numbers close to the midpoint, as it uses a fixed threshold of 0.5.
2. `customRoundB`:
	* Pros: More accurate than `customRoundA`, especially for numbers near the midpoint, as it uses a relative epsilon value.
	* Cons: The use of `Number.EPSILON` might be less intuitive and less efficient than a fixed threshold.

**Library used in test cases**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON data. However, `Math.round()` is a built-in JavaScript function that rounds numbers to the nearest integer.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The use of `Number.EPSILON` is a special value defined in the ECMAScript standard, which represents the difference between 1 and the smallest positive number that can be represented by the floating-point arithmetic system. This value is used to simulate rounding to the nearest integer, but its exact behavior may vary depending on the JavaScript engine and platform.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to compare other rounding strategies or libraries, you could consider implementing alternative implementations of `customRoundA` and `customRoundB`, such as:

* Using a different epsilon value or threshold
* Implementing a more sophisticated algorithm for rounding numbers (e.g., the Banker's Rounding method)
* Using a library like `mathjs` or `round-precision` to implement a custom rounding function

You could also experiment with other built-in JavaScript functions, such as `Math.trunc()` or `Number.EPSILON`, to compare their behavior and performance in different scenarios.

test ipsum (version: 0)

another one

Comparing performance of: `A vs B`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

A

B

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

test ipsum (version: 0)

another one

Comparing performance of: A vs B

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

A

B

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `A vs B`