Benchmark: another test 2 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var someFloat = 0.123456789;

Tests:

(Math.round(*10000)/10000)
(Math.round(someFloat*100)/100);
Math.floor bitwise
~~(someFloat * 100) / 100;
Math.floor
(Math.floor(someFloat*100)/100);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
(Math.round(*10000)/10000)
Math.floor bitwise
Math.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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what is being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

The benchmark is comparing the performance of different methods to round a floating-point number:

1. `toFixed(4)`: This method rounds the number to 4 decimal places using the "round half up" strategy.
2. `(Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString()`: This method uses the `Math.round()` function to round the number and then converts it to a string using the `toString()` method.
3. `Math.floor fast` (or `Math.trunc` in some browsers): This method uses the floor rounding strategy, which rounds the number down to the nearest integer.

The pros and cons of each approach:

* `toFixed(4)`: This method is simple and well-supported by most browsers, but it may not be as efficient as other methods for very large numbers.
* `(Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString()`: This method uses a separate round function, which can add overhead. However, it provides more control over the rounding strategy than `toFixed(4)`.
* `Math.floor fast` (or `Math.trunc`): These methods are generally faster than the other two options because they avoid converting to strings.

However, there is an issue with using `Math.round(*10000)/10000`. The `*` character is not allowed in JavaScript property access syntax. It's likely that it should be `someFloat * 10000` instead.

The test cases are comparing the performance of these methods for different inputs:

1. Test case: `(Math.round(someFloat*100)/100);`
	* Benchmark Definition: `(Math.round(someFloat*100)/100);`
	* Test Name: `(Math.round(*10000)/10000)` (fixed typo)
2. Test case: `~~(someFloat * 100) / 100;`
	* Benchmark Definition: `~~(someFloat * 100) / 100;`
	* Test Name: `Math.floor bitwise` (uses the bitwise NOT operator to round down, which is equivalent to Math.floor)
3. Test case: `(Math.floor(someFloat*100)/100);`
	* Benchmark Definition: `(Math.floor(someFloat*100)/100);`
	* Test Name: `Math.floor `

The latest benchmark results show that:

* `(Math.round(*10000)/10000)` is the slowest option, likely due to the string conversion.
* `Math.floor bitwise` (using the bitwise NOT operator) is slightly faster than `Math.floor`.
* `(Math.floor(someFloat*100)/100);` is the fastest option.

The test cases use special JavaScript features or syntax in the following ways:

* The `someFloat` variable is defined in the script preparation code.
* The `~` operator (bitwise NOT) is used to round down in the third test case.

Other alternatives that could be tested include:

* Using a different rounding strategy, such as "round half away from zero".
* Testing with very large or very small input values to see how the methods perform at extremes.
* Comparing the performance of these methods on different browsers or devices.

Related benchmarks:

another test 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toFixed(4) vs toPrecision(4).toString() vs (Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString() vs Math.floor fast vs the new Math.trunc

Comparing performance of: (Math.round(*10000)/10000) vs Math.floor bitwise vs Math.floor

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

(Math.round(*10000)/10000)

Math.floor bitwise

Math.floor

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):