Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
toPrecision
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Number(v.toPrecision(p)) vs _p=Math.pow(10,p-Math.ceil(Math.log10(v)));Math.round(v*_p)/_p
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var v=982173129.981279 var p=12
Tests:
Number(v.toPrecision(p))
Number(v.toPrecision(p));
_p=Math.pow(10,p-Math.ceil(Math.log10(v)));Math.round(v*_p)/_p
var _p=Math.pow(10,p-Math.ceil(Math.log10(v)));Math.round(v*_p)/_p;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Number(v.toPrecision(p))
_p=Math.pow(10,p-Math.ceil(Math.log10(v)));Math.round(v*_p)/_p
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):
I'd be happy to help explain what's being tested in this JavaScript benchmark. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition provides some essential information about the test case: * **Name**: The name of the benchmark, which is "toPrecision". * **Description**: An empty description, indicating that no specific performance characteristics of the test are relevant. * **Script Preparation Code**: A short script that initializes two variables: `v` with a large number (982173129.981279) and `p` with a value of 12. * **Html Preparation Code**: Empty, suggesting that no HTML-specific preparation is needed. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares the performance of two different approaches to round a large number (`v`) to a specified precision (`p`): 1. **Using `Number(v.toPrecision(p))`:** * Pros: + Simple and straightforward. + Uses the built-in `toPrecision()` method, which is optimized for performance. * Cons: + May be slower due to the overhead of calling a built-in method with multiple arguments. 2. **Using `_p=Math.pow(10,p-Math.ceil(Math.log10(v)));Math.round(v*_p)/_p`:** * Pros: + More control over the rounding process, allowing for potential optimizations. * Cons: + Requires manual implementation of a custom rounding function. **Pros and Cons** The choice between these two approaches depends on factors such as: * Performance: The built-in `toPrecision()` method is likely to be faster due to its optimized implementation. However, the custom approach might be faster if it can be optimized further. * Control: If you need more control over the rounding process, using a custom function might be preferable. **Library Used** In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. The `Math` object is utilized for mathematical functions like `log10()` and `ceil()`, which are part of the standard JavaScript library. **Special JS Feature/Syntax (none)** There are no special features or syntax used in this benchmark that would require additional explanation. **Other Alternatives** Alternative approaches to rounding numbers include: * Using a fixed-point arithmetic representation, where the number is represented as a sum of powers of a base value (e.g., `10`). * Utilizing a library like [Decimal.js](https://mikulisko.github.io/decimal.js/) for precise arithmetic operations. Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be directly comparable to the built-in methods used in this benchmark, as they often require additional setup and configuration.
Related benchmarks:
JS Rounding Performance Test
Floating Point ToFixed
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() asd
toFixed vs toPrecision vs bitwise 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?