Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
test rounding
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
someFloat.toFixed(4); vs someFloat.toPrecision(4).toString(); vs (Math.round(someFloat*10000)/10000).toString();
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var someFloat = 0.123456789;
Tests:
someFloat.toFixed(4);
someFloat.toFixed(4);
someFloat.toPrecision(4).toString();
someFloat.toPrecision(4).toString();
(Math.round(someFloat*10000)/10000).toString();
(Math.round(someFloat*10000)*0.00001).toString();
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
someFloat.toFixed(4);
someFloat.toPrecision(4).toString();
(Math.round(someFloat*10000)/10000).toString();
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):
**What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case on the MeasureThat.net website. The benchmark tests how different browsers and platforms perform when rounding numbers to a specific precision. In this test, the script `someFloat` is initialized with a floating-point value of 0.123456789. Then, three different approaches are compared: 1. **toFixed(4)**: This method rounds the number to 4 decimal places. 2. **toPrecision(4).toString()**: This method uses the `toPrecision()` method to specify the desired precision (in this case, 4) and then converts the result to a string using the `toString()` method. **Options being compared** The test compares the execution times of these two approaches in different browsers and platforms: * **Opera 93** * **Windows Desktop** **Pros and Cons of each approach:** 1. **toFixed(4)**: * Pros: Simple, widely supported, and easy to read. * Cons: May not be as precise as other methods, especially for larger numbers. 2. **toPrecision(4).toString()**: * Pros: More precise than `toFixed()` and can handle larger numbers. * Cons: May be less readable due to the use of multiple methods and conversions. **Library and its purpose** In this test case, none of the libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may have built-in rounding functions or methods that could potentially affect the performance of these tests. **Special JS features or syntax** The test uses the `Math.round()` function to round the number, which is a JavaScript function for rounding numbers to the nearest integer. However, in this specific benchmark, it's not the `Math.round()` function itself that's being tested, but rather its usage within an expression. The actual implementation of `toPrecision()` and `toFixed()` is provided by the JavaScript engine used by each browser, which may have some variations in behavior or optimization. **Other alternatives** To test alternative rounding methods, you could consider adding more benchmark definitions, such as: * Using a different number format (e.g., scientific notation) * Testing rounding errors for negative numbers * Comparing performance of other libraries or frameworks that provide rounding functions For example: ```json [ { "Benchmark Definition": "(someFloat.toFixed(4) * -1).toString();", "Test Name": "(someFloat.toFixed(4) * -1).toString();" }, { "Benchmark Definition": "Number(someFloat.toPrecision(4)).toFixed(4);", "Test Name": "Number(someFloat.toPrecision(4)).toFixed(4);" } ] ``` These additions would allow you to explore different scenarios and gain a deeper understanding of the performance characteristics of each rounding method.
Related benchmarks:
toFixed vs Math.round() - result as a number
Rounding to precision
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() to 1 decimal place
Precision rounding
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() as float
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?