Benchmark: Number format - MeasureThat.net

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>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toFixed
Intl
EPSILON

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months 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

Test name	Executions per second
toFixed	18754254.0 Ops/sec
Intl	54005.3 Ops/sec
EPSILON	305514656.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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:

Number format (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toFixed vs Intl vs EPSILON

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toFixed

Intl

EPSILON

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):