Benchmark: toLocaleFixed vs toFixed

Script Preparation code:

var someFloat = 0.123456789;
Number.prototype.toLocaleFixed = function(n) {
    return this.toLocaleString(undefined, {
        minimumFractionDigits: n,
        maximumFractionDigits: n
    });
};

Tests:

toLocaleFixed
Number(someFloat).toLocaleFixed(2);
toFixed
Number(someFloat).toFixed(2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toLocaleFixed
toFixed

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's being tested in the provided JSON.

**What is being tested:**
The benchmark is comparing the performance of two methods for formatting floating-point numbers as integers with a specified number of decimal places:

1. `toLocaleFixed`
2. `toFixed`

**Options compared:**

* `toLocaleFixed`:
	+ Pros:
		- Can handle very large or very small numbers, as it uses the locale's formatting rules.
		- More human-readable output, especially when dealing with currency or percentages.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower due to the overhead of locale-specific formatting.
		- Can vary in performance depending on the browser and system configuration.
* `toFixed`:
	+ Pros:
		- Generally faster than `toLocaleFixed`, as it uses a simple string manipulation approach.
		- More predictable performance, as the number of decimal places is fixed.
	+ Cons:
		- May not be suitable for numbers with very large or very small values.
		- Less human-readable output, especially when dealing with currency or percentages.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark uses a custom `Number.prototype.toLocaleFixed` method to test `toLocaleFixed`. This allows the benchmark to control the formatting rules used by `toLocaleFixed`.
* The benchmark uses a fixed value for the floating-point number (`someFloat`) in both tests. This ensures that the comparison is fair and consistent.

**Library usage:**
The benchmark uses the `Number.prototype.toLocaleFixed` method, which is a custom implementation. However, this method is based on the W3C standard for locale-dependent formatting, which allows for more flexible and human-readable output.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**
There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two simple formatting methods.

Now, let's discuss other alternatives:

* For a similar comparison, you could use the `Number.prototype.toFixed` method instead of `toLocaleFixed`.
* You could also test other formatting methods, such as using templates literals (e.g., `Number(someFloat).toString(2)` for binary format).
* Another approach would be to compare the performance of different locale formats, such as US English (`"en-US"`), European French (`"fr-FR"`), or German (`"de-DE"`).

Keep in mind that the specific alternatives will depend on your testing goals and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

toLocaleFixed vs toFixed (version: 0)

toLocaleFixed vs toFixed

Comparing performance of: toLocaleFixed vs toFixed

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toLocaleFixed

toFixed

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):