Benchmark: Math.random() vs. random() v2

Script Preparation code:

var random = (() => {
    const MAX = 2 ** 32 - 1;
    const pool = crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint32Array(1024)); // 4MB
    let index = 0;

    return () => {
        const value = pool[index];
        index++;
        if (index === pool.length) {
            crypto.getRandomValues(pool);
            index = 0;
        }
        return value / MAX;
    };
})();

Tests:

Math.random()
Math.random()
random()
random()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.random()
random()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 52 on Windows XP

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.random()	185686592.0 Ops/sec
random()	10589471.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of two scripts: `Math.random()` and `random() v2`. The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the performance of these two functions in generating random numbers.

**Options Compared**

The options compared are:

1. **`Math.random()`**: This is a built-in JavaScript function that generates a random number between 0 (inclusive) and 1 (exclusive).
2. **`random() v2`**: This is a custom implementation of a random number generator, designed to be faster and more efficient than the native `Math.random()` function.

**Pros and Cons**

The pros and cons of these approaches are:

* **`Math.random()`**:
	+ Pros: Simple and easy to implement, widely supported across browsers and devices.
	+ Cons: Can generate very low-quality random numbers (e.g., 0.5), which may not be suitable for certain applications (e.g., simulations, modeling).
* **`random() v2`**:
	+ Pros: Generates higher-quality random numbers, using a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator.
	+ Cons: More complex to implement, requires additional setup and initialization.

**Library Used**

The `crypto.getRandomValues()` function is used in the custom implementation of `random() v2`. This function provides a way to generate cryptographically secure random numbers, which are suitable for applications that require high-quality randomness (e.g., simulations, encryption).

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the custom implementation of `random() v2` uses a technique called "pooling" to generate random numbers, which is not a standard JavaScript feature.

**Other Considerations**

When comparing these two functions, it's essential to consider the following:

* **Performance**: How fast does each function execute?
* **Quality**: What kind of randomness do you need for your application (e.g., high-entropy, low-entropy)?
* **Support**: Which browsers and devices support each function?

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to generating random numbers in JavaScript, consider the following:

1. **`Math.random()` with a seed**: You can use `Math.random()` with a fixed seed to generate predictable random numbers.
2. **`crypto.randomUUID()`**: This function generates a cryptographically secure UUID, which can be used as a pseudo-random number generator.
3. **External libraries**: There are several external libraries available that provide high-quality random number generation, such as `random.org` or `seedrandom.js`.

In conclusion, the benchmark compares the performance of two functions: `Math.random()` and a custom implementation called `random() v2`. The latter uses a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator to generate higher-quality random numbers.

Related benchmarks:

Math.random() vs. random() v2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.random() vs random()

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.random()

random()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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