Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
toFixed vs Math.round
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
toFixed vs Math.round
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var someFloat = 0.123456789;
Tests:
toFixed
someFloat.toFixed(4);
Math.round
Math.round(someFloat)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
toFixed
Math.round
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
9 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/141.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 141 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=619983" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Math.round
100.7M/s
toFixed
7.7M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Math.round
100,733,944 Ops/sec
toFixed
7,652,530 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and explain what's happening in this specific benchmark. **What is being tested?** The benchmark is comparing two ways to round a decimal number: `toFixed` and `Math.round`. The test case creates a floating-point number `someFloat` with a value of 0.123456789, which has 8 significant digits. The goal is to measure the performance difference between these two rounding methods on different JavaScript engines. **Options being compared** There are two options being tested: 1. **toFixed**: This method returns a string representation of the number, rounded to the specified decimal places (in this case, 4). The resulting string can be either positive or negative. 2. **Math.round**: This method returns an integer value, which is the closest integer to the input floating-point number. **Pros and Cons** Here's a brief analysis of each approach: * **toFixed**: Pros: + Can produce more accurate results, especially for larger decimal numbers. + Allows for customization of the rounding precision. * Cons: + Returns a string value, which can be slower to process than integers. + May introduce unnecessary overhead due to string creation and manipulation. * **Math.round**: Pros: + Returns an integer value, which is generally faster to process than strings. + More concise and efficient than using `toFixed`. * Cons: + Can lead to rounding errors, especially for numbers with a large number of decimal places. **Library usage** The benchmark uses the `someFloat` variable, but it doesn't explicitly define what library or functionality is being used. However, based on the context, we can assume that the JavaScript engine's built-in arithmetic functions are being used. **Special JS feature/syntax** There isn't any specific special JS feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is solely on comparing two rounding methods. **Other alternatives** If you were to modify this benchmark, here are some alternative options to consider: * **NaN (Not a Number)**: You could test how each method handles NaN values. * **Infinity**: You could test how each method handles Infinity values. * **Different rounding modes**: Depending on the context, you might want to test different rounding modes, such as "half-to-even" or "round half away from zero". * **Large decimal numbers**: You could increase the precision of `someFloat` and see how performance changes with more significant digits. Keep in mind that these alternatives would require modifications to the benchmark definition and script preparation code.
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
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?