Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
Finding the length of a number
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
Comparing performance of:
String conversion vs Pure math vs Concatenation
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Registered User
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
window.number = 12345.678
Tests:
String conversion
const result = number.toString().length
Pure math
const result = Math.ceil(Math.log10(number + 1));
Concatenation
const result = (number + "").length
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
String conversion
Pure math
Concatenation
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; CrOS x86_64 14541.0.0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 123 on Chrome OS 14541.0.0
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=520000" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Concatenation
9.6M/s
String conversion
9.3M/s
Pure math
3.5M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Concatenation
9,558,180 Ops/sec
String conversion
9,326,832 Ops/sec
Pure math
3,533,707 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is tested, the options compared, pros and cons of those approaches, and other considerations. **Benchmark Definition** The provided JSON defines a benchmark named "Finding the length of a number". This benchmark involves creating a JavaScript variable `number` with a value of 12345.678 and then measuring the execution time to perform different operations on this variable. **Script Preparation Code** ```javascript window.number = 12345.678; ``` This line sets the `number` variable in the global scope, making it accessible from within the benchmark scripts. **Html Preparation Code** ```html null ``` There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that the benchmark only involves JavaScript execution and does not rely on any specific HTML structure or content. **Individual Test Cases** The benchmark includes three test cases: 1. **String conversion**: Measure the time it takes to convert the `number` variable to a string using the `.toString()` method. ```javascript const result = number.toString().length; ``` 2. **Pure math**: Measure the time it takes to compute the ceiling of the base-10 logarithm of the `number` variable plus 1, using the `Math.ceil` and `Math.log10` functions. ```javascript const result = Math.ceil(Math.log10(number + 1)); ``` 3. **Concatenation**: Measure the time it takes to concatenate the `number` variable with a string literal using the `+` operator. ```javascript const result = (number + "").length; ``` **Library Usage** The benchmark uses the built-in JavaScript functions `.toString()` and `Math.log10`, which are part of the ECMAScript standard. No external libraries are required. **Special JS Features/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark, other than the use of the global scope for the `number` variable. **Pros and Cons of Different Approaches** Each test case has its own pros and cons: 1. **String conversion**: * Pros: Simple and straightforward. * Cons: May involve additional overhead due to string creation. 2. **Pure math**: * Pros: Can be optimized for performance using specialized libraries or algorithms. * Cons: Requires more complex mathematical operations, which may not always result in better performance. 3. **Concatenation**: * Pros: Simple and easy to implement. * Cons: May involve additional overhead due to string creation. **Other Considerations** When writing microbenchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider factors such as: * Input size and distribution * System architecture and hardware features (e.g., multi-core processors) * JavaScript engine and version * Cache behavior To make your benchmark more accurate and representative, you can try varying the input values, increasing the number of test cases, or using different JavaScript engines. **Alternatives** If you want to explore alternative approaches or optimization techniques for similar benchmarks, consider the following: * Use a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler like SpiderMonkey or V8 to optimize performance. * Experiment with different data types and structures (e.g., arrays, objects). * Investigate caching mechanisms or memoization techniques. * Compare results using different JavaScript engines or interpreters. By understanding the intricacies of your benchmark and considering alternative approaches, you can gain valuable insights into the performance characteristics of your code.
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?