Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
number format two decimals
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
intl vs round fixed
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var numList = [99.997, 0.0001, 99.994, 0.005, 0.001] for(i=0; i<numList.length; i++){}
Tests:
intl
new Intl.NumberFormat('en', {minimumFractionDigits: 2, maximumFractionDigits: 2,}).format(numList[i])
round fixed
(Math.round(numList[i] * 100) / 100).toFixed(2);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
intl
round fixed
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches for formatting numbers with two decimal places: 1. Using the `Intl.NumberFormat` API (`intl`) 2. Manual rounding using `(Math.round(numList[i] * 100) / 100).toFixed(2);` (`round fixed`) **What is being tested?** The test checks which approach is faster for formatting a list of numbers with two decimal places. **Options compared** Two options are being compared: 1. **Intl.NumberFormat API**: This is a built-in JavaScript API that provides a way to format numbers according to the rules of different cultures and languages. In this case, it's used to format numbers in English (en) with a minimum of 2 decimal places. 2. **Manual rounding**: This approach uses mathematical operations to round the numbers manually. **Pros and Cons** **Intl.NumberFormat API:** Pros: * Portable across browsers and platforms * Handles formatting according to cultural and language rules * Fast and efficient Cons: * May not be supported in older browsers or versions of JavaScript * Can be slower for very large datasets due to the need to parse culture information **Manual rounding:** Pros: * Generally faster than using Intl.NumberFormat API, especially for small to medium-sized datasets * Does not require parsing cultural and language rules Cons: * May not produce the exact same results as Intl.NumberFormat API for certain cultures or languages * Requires manual implementation of rounding logic * Can be slower for very large datasets due to the need to perform multiple calculations **Library used** The `Intl.NumberFormat` API uses a library called ICU (International Components for Unicode), which provides a way to handle formatting according to cultural and language rules. **Special JS feature/syntax** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It's purely focused on comparing two different approaches to formatting numbers with two decimal places. **Other alternatives** If you wanted to add more tests, you could consider: * Using `toFixed()` with a large number of decimal places (e.g., 10) to see how the performance changes * Comparing different rounding modes (e.g., round half up/down) * Testing formatting numbers in different cultures or languages using Intl.NumberFormat API Overall, this benchmark provides a simple and informative way to compare the performance of two approaches for formatting numbers with two decimal places.
Related benchmarks:
Floating Point ToFixed
Decimal rounding
Number format
toFixed vs mathjs round
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?