Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
Number format
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
Comparing performance of:
toFixed vs Intl vs EPSILON
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var number = 127.189490
Tests:
toFixed
number.toFixed(3)
Intl
new Intl.NumberFormat('en-GB', { maximumFractionDigits: 3 }).format(number)
EPSILON
Math.round((number + Number.EPSILON) * 100) / 100
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
toFixed
Intl
EPSILON
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.5 Safari/605.1.15
Browser/OS:
Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=576679" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
EPSILON
305.5M/s
toFixed
18.8M/s
Intl
54K/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
EPSILON
305,514,656 Ops/sec
toFixed
18,754,254 Ops/sec
Intl
54,005 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches to format numbers in JavaScript: 1. `toFixed(3)` 2. Using the `Intl.NumberFormat` API with a locale set to `'en-GB'` and options for maximum fraction digits. 3. A custom approach using `Math.round((number + Number.EPSILON) * 100) / 100` **Options Compared** The three approaches are compared in terms of performance, measured by the number of executions per second. * `toFixed(3)` uses a built-in method to format numbers with a fixed number of decimal places. * `Intl.NumberFormat` is an API that provides a more robust and flexible way to format numbers, allowing for customization of formatting options such as locale, currency, and number style. * The custom approach using `Math.round((number + Number.EPSILON) * 100) / 100` is a more complex method that uses the epsilon value from the `Number` class to approximate floating-point precision. **Pros and Cons** Here are some pros and cons of each approach: 1. `toFixed(3)`: * Pros: Simple, efficient, and widely supported. * Cons: Limited customization options, may not work correctly for all cultures or languages. 2. `Intl.NumberFormat`: * Pros: Highly customizable, supports multiple locales and number styles, and is more robust than `toFixed`. * Cons: May have a slight performance overhead due to the additional complexity. 3. Custom approach using `Math.round((number + Number.EPSILON) * 100) / 100`: * Pros: Provides more control over precision and formatting options, but may be slower and less efficient than the other two approaches. * Cons: More complex and harder to read, relies on a specific epsilon value that may not always work correctly. **Library and Purpose** The `Intl.NumberFormat` API is part of the ECMAScript Internationalization API, which provides support for formatting numbers in multiple languages and locales. The purpose of this API is to provide a standardized way to format numbers that takes into account cultural and linguistic differences. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** None mentioned. **Other Alternatives** If performance is not the top priority, other alternatives to consider are: 1. Using a library like `numeral` or `formatjs` which provides more customization options for formatting numbers. 2. Implementing custom formatting logic using regular expressions and string manipulation. 3. Using a JavaScript runtime that supports improved floating-point arithmetic, such as `Big.js`. These alternatives may offer better performance or more flexibility, but at the cost of additional complexity and potential trade-offs in terms of code readability and maintainability.
Related benchmarks
Intl.NumberFormat vs RegExp
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?