Benchmark: toFixed() - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

value = 12.5

Tests:

toFixed(1)
value.toFixed(1)
toString()
value.toString()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toFixed(1)
toString()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toFixed(1)	3149891.0 Ops/sec
toString()	6428717.5 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 test cases and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for measuring the performance of JavaScript's `toFixed()` function. It defines two different scenarios:

1. The original `toFixed()` function, which converts an integer to a string with a specified number of decimal places.
2. A variant of `toFixed()`, where the value is converted to a string using the `toString()` method.

**Options Compared**

The test compares two options for converting an integer to a string:

1. **`toFixed()`**: This function takes two arguments: the number to be converted and the number of decimal places.
2. **`toString()`**: This function converts its argument to a string, without any additional formatting.

**Pros and Cons**

**`toFixed()`**

Pros:

* More flexible, as it allows for precise control over the number of decimal places.
* Can handle large numbers with many decimal places efficiently.

Cons:

* May incur higher overhead due to the additional arguments and logic required.

**`toString()`**

Pros:

* Simpler and more straightforward, requiring less overhead.
* Can be faster in some cases, as it only requires a single string conversion.

Cons:

* Less flexible, as it always converts the number to a string without any precision control.
* May lose precision for very large numbers with many decimal places.

**Library Usage**

In the test case, no specific library is used. However, if we consider the `toFixed()` function itself, it relies on the browser's implementation of this function. The browser's implementation may use various optimizations and techniques to improve performance.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the provided code. It only uses standard JavaScript methods (`toFixed()`, `toString()`) without any custom implementations or advanced features like async/await, promises, or modern JavaScript language features (like arrow functions, destructuring, etc.).

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to measure performance of other string formatting functions, consider the following alternatives:

1. **`padStart()`**: Similar to `toFixed()`, but pads the number with spaces on the left instead of zeros.
2. **`padEnd()`**: Similar to `toFixed()`, but pads the number with spaces on the right instead of zeros.
3. **`format()`**: Some browsers (like Chrome) have a built-in formatting function called `format()`. This function allows for more complex formatting options, like specifying a specific format mask.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not provide identical performance characteristics as `toFixed()`, and their usage depends on the specific requirements of your use case.

Related benchmarks:

toFixed() (version: 0)

Convert int to string using toFixed()

Comparing performance of: toFixed(1) vs toString()

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toFixed(1)

toString()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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