Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
round vs add half and floor
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
round vs floor
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
round
Math.round(13.37) Math.round(13.67)
floor
Math.floor(13.37 + 0.5) Math.floor(13.67 + 0.5)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
round
floor
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 JSON and explain what is being tested in the benchmark. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches for rounding numbers: 1. `Math.round(13.37)\r\nMath.round(13.67)` 2. `Math.floor(13.37 + 0.5)\r\nMath.floor(13.67 + 0.5)` The benchmark is testing the performance of these two approaches on the web browser, specifically Chrome 90. **Options compared** Two options are being compared: 1. **`Math.round()`**: This function rounds a number to the nearest integer. 2. **`Math.floor() + 0.5`**: This approach uses `Math.floor()` to round down to the nearest integer and then adds 0.5, effectively rounding up. **Pros and Cons of each approach** * **`Math.round()`**: + Pros: Simple and widely supported. + Cons: Can produce NaN (Not a Number) results for certain inputs (e.g., `-0.5`). * **`Math.floor() + 0.5`**: + Pros: Produces predictable results, avoiding NaN issues. + Cons: More complex and slower due to the addition step. In general, `Math.round()` is a good choice when you want simple, fast rounding, but be cautious with inputs that might produce NaN results. The `Math.floor() + 0.5` approach provides more control and predictability but comes at the cost of slightly slower performance. **Library usage** There doesn't seem to be any specific library being used in these benchmarks, as both examples rely on built-in JavaScript functions (`Math.round()` and `Math.floor()`). **Special JS feature or syntax** The benchmark uses a special syntax, `\r\n`, which is an escape sequence for the newline character. This might not be immediately apparent to all users, but it's not a critical issue. **Other alternatives** If you were considering alternative approaches, here are a few options: * **Bourne shell arithmetic**: You could use the `((a + 0.5) > 0 ? a + 0.5 : a)` syntax, which is similar to `Math.floor() + 0.5`. However, this approach might not be compatible with all JavaScript environments. * **Third-party libraries**: There are several libraries available that provide rounding functions, such as `lodash.round()` or `moment.js`'s `roundTo()`. These libraries might offer additional features or optimizations, but they would add dependencies to your project. Keep in mind that these alternatives might not always be suitable for performance-critical code, and it's essential to evaluate their trade-offs before choosing an alternative approach.
Related benchmarks:
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() vs Math.floorfast vs MDN round_to_precision
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() vs Math.floorfaster test
Round in javascript
lodash.round VS Math.round (divide by 0)
parseFloat(toFixed) vs Math.round()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?