Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
toFixed vs Math.round()
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Number(toFixed(2)) vs Math.round(*100)/100
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var someFloat = 0.123456789;
Tests:
Number(toFixed(2))
Number(someFloat.toFixed(4));
Math.round(*100)/100
Math.round(someFloat*100)/100;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Number(toFixed(2))
Math.round(*100)/100
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark compares two approaches to round or format numbers: `toFixed()` and `Math.round()`. The goal is to determine which approach is faster for specific use cases. **Options Compared** 1. **`toFixed(4)`**: This method rounds a number to the specified number of decimal places using the "fixed" rounding mode. 2. **`Math.round(*100)/100`**: This method multiplies the input number by 100, rounds it to the nearest integer using `Math.round()`, and then divides the result by 100. **Pros and Cons** * **`toFixed(4)`**: + Pros: Easy to read and understand, produces a formatted string with a specified number of decimal places. + Cons: May lead to precision issues if not careful, can be slower due to the rounding mode. * **`Math.round(*100)/100`**: + Pros: Faster than `toFixed(4)` for most use cases, as it avoids unnecessary decimal place manipulation. + Cons: Less readable and understandable than `toFixed(4)`, may produce unexpected results if not used carefully. **Library Usage** There is no explicit library usage in the provided benchmark code. However, it's worth noting that `Math.round()` is a built-in JavaScript function, which means it doesn't rely on any external libraries. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being used in this benchmark (e.g., async/await, generators, promises). The code is straightforward and focused on comparing two numerical rounding methods. **Other Alternatives** For those interested in exploring alternative approaches to round numbers in JavaScript: * **`Number.EPSILON`**: This property represents the smallest difference that can be detected between two numbers. You can use it to determine if a number is close enough to zero, allowing for more flexible rounding. * **`Decimal.js` library**: A popular library for performing decimal arithmetic and rounding numbers with high precision. Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as straightforward or efficient as the built-in `Math.round()` function, but they can provide more flexibility and control over numerical operations.
Related benchmarks:
toFixed vs Math.round() - result as a number
toFixed vs Math.round() 2
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() to 1 decimal place
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() asd
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?