Benchmark: toFixed() vs String(Math.floor()

Script Preparation code:

var someFloat = 123.456;

Tests:

toFixed()
someFloat.toFixed();
String(Math.floor())
String(Math.floor(someFloat));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toFixed()
String(Math.floor())

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined as `toFixed() vs String(Math.floor())`. This means that we're comparing the performance of two different approaches:

1. Using the `toFixed()` method to convert a number to a string.
2. Converting a number to an integer using the `Math.floor()` function and then converting it to a string.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **`toFixed()`**: This method converts a number to a string, padding with zeros if necessary, while preserving the original fractional part of the number.
2. **`String(Math.floor())`**: This approach first converts the number to an integer using `Math.floor()`, and then converts it to a string.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

1. **`toFixed()`**:
	* Pros: Preserves the original fractional part of the number, which can be important in certain calculations.
	* Cons: May lead to more significant strings if the fractional part is small, potentially affecting performance.
2. **`String(Math.floor())`**:
	* Pros: Can result in smaller strings, especially for integers with a large range.
	* Cons: Loses the original fractional part of the number.

**Library and Purpose**

In this benchmark, there is no specific library being used. However, `Math.floor()` is a built-in JavaScript function that returns the largest integer less than or equal to the given value.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two different approaches to converting numbers to strings.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches for converting numbers to strings include:

1. Using `toString()` instead of `toFixed()`.
2. Using template literals (``${number}``) instead of concatenating a string with the number.
3. Using a custom function to convert the number to a string, such as using a ternary operator or regex.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The preparation code for this benchmark is:

```javascript
var someFloat = 123.456;
```

This sets up a variable `someFloat` with a value of 123.456, which will be used in the benchmark tests.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases in the benchmark:

1. `toFixed()`: This test case runs the expression `someFloat.toFixed()` and measures its performance.
2. `String(Math.floor())`: This test case runs the expression `String(Math.floor(someFloat))` and measures its performance.

The latest benchmark result shows that Chrome 104 performs significantly better for the `toFixed()` approach, while still performing reasonably well for the `String(Math.floor())` approach.

Overall, this benchmark helps users understand the trade-offs between preserving fractional parts and achieving smaller string lengths when converting numbers to strings.

Related benchmarks:

toFixed() vs String(Math.floor() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toFixed() vs String(Math.floor())

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toFixed()

String(Math.floor())

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):