Benchmark: toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() 22222

Script Preparation code:

var someFloat = 0.123456789;

Tests:

toFixed(2)
someFloat.toFixed(2)
Round
Math.round(someFloat*100) / 100

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toFixed(2)
Round

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 137 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toFixed(2)	34522796.0 Ops/sec
Round	280984096.0 Ops/sec

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 is being tested, compared options, pros and cons of each approach, library usage, special JS features or syntax, and other considerations.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two test cases for a JavaScript microbenchmark:

1. `toFixed(2)`: This benchmark tests the performance of using the `toFixed()` method to round a floating-point number to 2 decimal places.
2. `Math.round()`: This benchmark tests the performance of using the `Math.round()` function to round a floating-point number.

**Comparison options:**

The two approaches being compared are:

1. **`toFixed(2)`**: This approach uses the `toFixed()` method, which rounds the number to the specified number of decimal places.
2. **`Math.round()`: This approach uses the `Math.round()` function, which rounds the number to the nearest integer.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **`toFixed(2)`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be more readable and intuitive for developers who are familiar with the `toFixed()` method.
		+ May perform better due to its ability to optimize rounding.
	* Cons:
		+ May not work correctly for all edge cases, such as very large or very small numbers.
2. **`Math.round()`:**
	* Pros:
		+ More versatile and can handle a wider range of input values.
		+ Less prone to errors due to its explicit rounding behavior.
	* Cons:
		+ May be less readable for developers who are not familiar with the `Math.round()` function.

**Library usage:**

There is no library mentioned in the provided JSON. However, some JavaScript libraries may use or rely on the `toFixed()` method or `Math.round()` function internally.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

None of the provided test cases uses special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard JavaScript functions and operators.

**Other considerations:**

1. **Number precision:** The benchmark assumes that the input number is a floating-point value with a limited number of decimal places (in this case, 22). However, in real-world scenarios, numbers can have more decimal places.
2. **Browser variability:** The benchmark uses Firefox as the browser and measures performance on different devices (Desktop). This may not accurately represent performance in other browsers or environments.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives for rounding numbers include:

1. **`Number.EPSILON`:** A small value that can be used to determine if two numbers are close enough to be considered equal.
2. **`decimal.js`:** A library for working with decimal arithmetic, which provides a range of rounding algorithms and options.
3. **`BigInt`:** A JavaScript primitive type for representing large integers, which can be useful for calculations that require precise control over rounding.

These alternatives may offer better performance or more flexibility than the `toFixed()` method or `Math.round()` function in certain situations.

Related benchmarks:

toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() 22222 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toFixed(2) vs Round

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toFixed(2)

Round

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):