Benchmark: toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() with constant multiplier

Script Preparation code:

var randomFloat = 0.123456789;

Tests:

toFixed(6)
Number(randomFloat.toFixed(6));
toPrecision(6)
Number(randomFloat.toPrecision(6));
Math.round()
Math.round(randomFloat*1000000 / 1000000)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toFixed(6)
toPrecision(6)
Math.round()

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 the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares three approaches to round a floating-point number:

1. `toFixed(6)`: Rounds the number to 6 decimal places using the `toFixed()` method.
2. `toPrecision(6)`: Converts the number to a fixed-point representation with 6 digits after the decimal point using the `toPrecision()` method.
3. `Math.round(number*1000000 / 1000000)`: Rounds the number by multiplying it by 1,000,000, rounding the result, and then dividing by 1,000,000.

**Comparison**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of these three approaches on a random floating-point number (`randomFloat`). The `ExecutionsPerSecond` value represents the average number of executions per second for each approach.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **toFixed(6)**:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and works well for most cases.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for very large or very small numbers due to rounding errors.
2. **toPrecision(6)**:
	* Pros: More accurate than `toFixed()` for certain types of numbers (e.g., integers).
	* Cons: May require more CPU cycles and memory compared to `toFixed()`.
3. **Math.round(number*1000000 / 1000000)**
	* Pros: Fastest approach, as it avoids the overhead of calling methods.
	* Cons: Requires multiplication and division operations, which may lead to rounding errors.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

In this benchmark, the `Number` function is used to convert a string representation of a number to its numeric value. This function uses a library called ECMAScript Internationalization API (ECMA-419), which provides functions for formatting and parsing numbers in various ways, including rounding and precision control.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses Chrome 105 as the browser, which may impact results due to variations in JavaScript engine optimizations.
* The `ExecutionsPerSecond` value is likely affected by factors such as CPU clock speed, cache performance, and memory constraints.

**Alternatives**

If you want to test similar benchmarks or compare other approaches, here are some alternatives:

1. Compare the performance of different rounding algorithms (e.g., banker's rounding vs. decimal rounding).
2. Test the impact of precision on performance using a variable number of digits.
3. Compare the speed of various string formatting methods (e.g., `toFixed()`, `toPrecision()`, and template literals).

Keep in mind that benchmarking JavaScript code can be complex due to factors like browser variations, caching, and platform-specific optimizations. Always run benchmarks multiple times with different inputs and settings to ensure reliable results.

Related benchmarks:

toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() with constant multiplier (version: 0)

Let's see which is faster and slower! toFixed(6) vs toPrecision(6) vs Math.round(number*1000000) / 1000000

Comparing performance of: toFixed(6) vs toPrecision(6) vs Math.round()

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

toFixed(6)

toPrecision(6)

Math.round()

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):