Benchmark: floor vs toPrecision

Tests:

toPrecision
(Math.random()*1000).toPrecision(3)
floor
Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toPrecision
floor

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/96.0.4664.93 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 96 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toPrecision	3089141.5 Ops/sec
floor	4207315.5 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 definition and its implications.

**What is tested:**
The benchmark compares two methods for rounding numbers to a specified precision:

1. `Math.floor()`: This method returns the largest integer less than or equal to the given number.
2. `toPrecision()` : This method returns a string representing the value of the original number, rounded according to the specified precision.

**Options compared:**
The benchmark tests these two methods for rounding numbers with 3 decimal places (`(Math.random()*1000).toPrecision(3)`).

**Pros and Cons:**

* **`Math.floor()`**: Pros:
	+ Fast and efficient
	+ Works well for integer values and some floating-point cases
* Cons:
	+ May lose precision for non-integer values, especially with a high number of decimal places
	+ Can lead to rounding errors when dealing with very large or small numbers
* **`toPrecision()`**: Pros:
	+ Provides more precise control over the rounding process
	+ Works well for both integer and floating-point values
* Cons:
	+ Slower than `Math.floor()`
	+ May be less efficient due to the overhead of creating a string

**Library usage:**
The benchmark uses the `Math` library, which is a built-in JavaScript library. The `toPrecision()` method is part of this library.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**
There are no special features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. It's a straightforward comparison between two methods.

**Other alternatives:**
If you wanted to test alternative rounding methods, you could consider using:

* `Number.EPSILON` and `Math.abs()` to check for floating-point precision issues
* Custom implementation using bitwise operations or other mathematical techniques

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as straightforward to implement as `Math.floor()` and `toPrecision()`, but can provide more insight into the nuances of rounding numbers in JavaScript.

**Benchmark preparation code:**
The provided benchmark preparation code is empty, which means it doesn't perform any specific setup or initialization before running the benchmark. This allows users to focus on testing the performance difference between `Math.floor()` and `toPrecision()`.

Related benchmarks:

floor vs toPrecision (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toPrecision vs floor

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toPrecision

floor

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):