Benchmark: Math.round() comparison

Script Preparation code:

var num = 0.123456789;
var scale = 2;

Tests:

EPS
const tenToN = 10 ** scale; Math.round((num * tenToN) * (1 + Number.EPSILON)) / tenToN
e
+(Math.round(num + "e+" + scale) + "e-" + scale)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
EPS
e

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 two test cases:

1. `"EPS"`: This test case measures the performance of `Math.round()` when used with a number that includes the "epsilon" value (`Number.EPSILON`). The script attempts to round a value (`num * tenToN`) using this epsilon value.
2. `"e"`: This test case measures the performance of `Math.round()` when used with a string literal containing the base-10 logarithm of 2 (`"e+` and `"e-" + scale`).

**Comparison of Options**

The two test cases compare different approaches to rounding numbers in JavaScript:

1. **Using `Number.EPSILON`:** This approach uses the small value added by the IEEE floating-point standard to represent NaN (Not a Number) values. The epsilon value is used to detect whether a number is close enough to zero to be rounded to it.
2. **Rounding strings:** This approach uses string literals containing the base-10 logarithm of 2 (`"e+` and `"e-" + scale`). These values are not related to `Number.EPSILON`.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Using `Number.EPSILON`:**
	* Pros:
		+ Portable across different browsers and platforms.
		+ Efficient, as it only requires a single multiplication operation.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be suitable for all use cases, such as when working with very large or small numbers.
		+ Can lead to subtle rounding errors in certain situations (e.g., when dealing with binary fractions).
2. **Rounding strings:**
	* Pros:
		+ More intuitive and human-readable than using `Number.EPSILON`.
		+ Can be useful for some specific applications, such as logging or formatting numbers.
	* Cons:
		+ Less portable across different browsers and platforms.
		+ Requires more computational resources due to the string manipulation.

**Library/Tool Used**

There is no explicit library or tool used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that `Number.EPSILON` is a built-in property of the JavaScript language, which makes this test case highly platform-agnostic.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The only notable feature used in this benchmark is `Math.round()` itself, which is a built-in JavaScript function for rounding numbers to the nearest integer. There are no other special features or syntaxes mentioned in the provided code.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to rounding numbers in JavaScript, here are some options:

1. **`BigInt` and `Math.abs()`**: For large integers, consider using `BigInt` and `Math.abs()` for rounding.
2. **Custom rounding functions**: Implement your own custom rounding function using a different algorithm or technique, such as the Banker's Rounding method.
3. **Third-party libraries**: Utilize third-party libraries like `round-precision` or `mathjs` for more advanced rounding capabilities.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have varying degrees of compatibility with different browsers and platforms.

Related benchmarks:

Math.round() comparison (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: EPS vs e

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

EPS

e

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):