Benchmark: conversion3 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var s = '567';
var n,i;

Tests:

parseInt
for (i=0; i<10000; i++) n= parseInt(s);
shift0
for (i=0; i<10000; i++) n= s>>0;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
parseInt
shift0

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark is a JavaScript microbenchmark that measures the performance of two different approaches: using the `parseInt` function and bitwise shifting with a right shift operator (`>>`). The benchmark is designed to test how efficiently these approaches can convert a string representation of a number to an integer.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is:
```javascript
var s = '567';
var n, i;
```
This code simply declares two variables: `s` with the value `'567'`, and `n` (which is not used in this benchmark). The variable `i` is also declared but not used.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that the benchmark does not include any HTML-related overhead or setup.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark includes two test cases:

1. **parseInt**: This test case uses a simple loop to convert the string `s` to an integer using the `parseInt` function.
2. **shift0**: This test case uses a similar loop, but instead of calling `parseInt`, it uses bitwise shifting with the right shift operator (`>>`) to extract the first digit of the number and multiply it by 10, effectively converting the string to an integer.

**Library Usage**

There is no library usage in this benchmark. The code only relies on built-in JavaScript functions and operators.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The tests only use basic arithmetic operations, loops, and bitwise shifting.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show the performance of each test case:

* **parseInt**: 1128.08 executions per second (executionsPerSecond value)
* **shift0**: 644.85 executions per second

**Approach Comparison**

The two approaches have different pros and cons:

1. **parseInt**:
	* Pros: More straightforward and intuitive, easier to understand and implement.
	* Cons: May incur additional overhead due to the parsing logic, which can lead to slower performance compared to bitwise shifting.
2. **shift0**:
	* Pros: Can be faster than `parseInt` since it only involves a simple bitwise operation.
	* Cons: Requires manual handling of the digit extraction and multiplication, which can add complexity.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following factors:

* Code readability and maintainability
* Performance requirements (e.g., are you targeting very high-speed applications?)
* The specific use case and constraints

If performance is a top priority, `shift0` might be a better choice due to its simplicity and potentially lower overhead. However, if code readability and maintainability are more important, `parseInt` might still be the better option.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for converting strings to integers include:

* Using a library like ` numeral.js`, which provides a range of string parsing functions
* Implementing your own custom parser based on the input format
* Using regular expressions (although this may incur additional overhead)

In general, when faced with performance-critical code or optimization tasks, it's essential to consider both the performance benefits and potential trade-offs in terms of readability, maintainability, and complexity.

Related benchmarks:

conversion3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: parseInt vs shift0

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

parseInt

shift0

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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