Benchmark: toFixed vs Math.round() generic 2

Script Preparation code:

var someFloat = 0.123456789;

Tests:

toFixed(4)
someFloat.toFixed(4);
(Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString()
const tenToN = 10 ** 4; const sign = someFloat >= 0 ? 1 : -1; (Math.round(((someFloat + (sign*Number.EPSILON)))*tenToN)/tenToN).toString();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toFixed(4)
(Math.round(*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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark is defined by the JSON object:

```json
{
    "Name": "toFixed vs Math.round() generic 2",
    "Description": null,
    "Script Preparation Code": "var someFloat = 0.123456789;",
    "Html Preparation Code": null
}
```

This definition specifies that two different approaches are being compared:

1. `toFixed(4)`: This uses the built-in `toFixed()` method to format a number as a fixed-point string with a specified number of decimal places.
2. `(Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString()`: This uses the `Math.round()` function to round a number to the nearest integer, multiplies it by 10,000, divides it by 10,000, and then converts the result to a string.

**Library**
There is no specific library mentioned in this benchmark. However, the use of `Number.EPSILON` suggests that the test is using the JavaScript standard library, specifically the `Number` object.

**Special JS feature/syntax**
The benchmark uses the following special JavaScript feature:

* Template literals (`\r\nconst sign = someFloat >= 0 ? 1 : -1;\r\n`) are used to define a multi-line string. This is a syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Pros and Cons of approaches**

1. `toFixed(4)`:
	* Pros: Simple, concise, and efficient. It's a built-in method that's optimized for performance.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for all use cases, as it can lead to precision issues when dealing with very large or very small numbers.
2. `(Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString()`:
	* Pros: More flexible than `toFixed(4)`, as it can handle a wider range of numbers and is less prone to precision issues.
	* Cons: More complex, slower, and less efficient due to the multiplication and division operations.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches, some options could be:

1. `someFloat.toExponential(4)`: This method converts a number to an exponential string with a specified exponent and precision.
2. `someFloat.toFixed(10)` (instead of 4): If the desired precision is higher than 4 decimal places, using a larger value in the `toFixed()` method could be a better approach.

**Benchmark preparation code**
The provided script preparation code:

```javascript
var someFloat = 0.123456789;
```

Simply assigns a test float to the variable `someFloat`. This allows the benchmark to use this value repeatedly across different tests.

**Individual test cases**
There are two individual test cases defined in the benchmark, each with its own script and HTML preparation code:

```javascript
{
    "Benchmark Definition": "someFloat.toFixed(4);",
    "Test Name": "toFixed(4)"
}
```

```javascript
{
    "Benchmark Definition": "const tenToN = 10 ** 4;\r\nconst sign = someFloat >= 0 ? 1 : -1;\r\n(Math.round(((someFloat + (sign*Number.EPSILON)))*tenToN)/tenToN).toString();\r\n",
    "Test Name": "(Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString()"
}
```

These test cases demonstrate the two approaches being compared in the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

toFixed vs Math.round() generic 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toFixed(4) vs (Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString()

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toFixed(4)

(Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString()

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):