Benchmark: toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() vs Math.floorfaster test 2

Script Preparation code:

var float = 0.123456789;

var fixes = [1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000, 1000000, 10000000, 100000000];

var fix = 2;

Tests:

Floar
~~(float * fixes[fix]) / fixes[fix];
toFixed
+(float.toFixed(fix))
static mult
~~(float * 100) / 2;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Floar
toFixed
static mult

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.

Measuring JavaScript performance is crucial for developers to optimize their code. Let's break down the benchmark provided by MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test compares four approaches to round or format floating-point numbers:

1. `Math.round()`
2. `toFixed(fix)`
3. `toPrecision(fix)` (note: this method was introduced in ECMAScript 2015, also known as ES6)
4. A custom "Floar" function using bitwise operations (`~~(float * fixes[fix]) / fixes[fix]`)

**Options Compared**

* **Math.round()**: Rounds a number to the nearest integer.
	+ Pros: Simple and widely supported. Cons: Can lead to rounding errors for decimal numbers.
* **toFixed(fix)**: Formats a number as a fixed-point number with `fix` decimal places.
	+ Pros: Precise control over formatting. Cons: May not be suitable for all use cases, and the format specifier can affect performance.
* **toPrecision(fix)**: Formats a number as a fixed-point number with `fix` significant digits (not necessarily decimal places).
	+ Pros: More flexible than `toFixed()` and can handle large numbers more efficiently. Cons: May not be suitable for all use cases, especially when dealing with decimal numbers.
* **Floar**: Uses bitwise operations to approximate rounding or formatting a floating-point number.
	+ Pros: Fast and potentially efficient for certain types of calculations. Cons: Less readable and may not work correctly for all edge cases.

**Library and Special JavaScript Features**

None of the tested approaches use a dedicated library. However, `toFixed()` and `toPrecision()` rely on the Intl.NumberFormat API, which is available in modern browsers but not in older versions of Internet Explorer.

The "Floar" function uses bitwise operations, which are part of the ECMAScript standard. It's worth noting that this approach may not be suitable for all use cases due to its limited precision and potential for errors.

**Other Alternatives**

For rounding or formatting numbers, you can consider using other methods:

* **Decimal.js**: A library for decimal arithmetic, which provides more precise control over calculations.
* **Big.js**: Another library for large number arithmetic, which can handle very large and small numbers efficiently.
* **Mathjs**: A library that extends the ECMAScript standard with additional mathematical functions, including those for rounding and formatting.

When choosing a method for rounding or formatting numbers, consider factors such as:

* Required precision
* Performance requirements
* Compatibility with older browsers
* Readability and maintainability of the code

In this specific benchmark, the results suggest that `toPrecision()` is likely the fastest approach due to its efficient use of binary representation. However, the choice of method ultimately depends on the specific requirements of your application.

Related benchmarks:

toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() vs Math.floorfaster test 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Floar vs toFixed vs static mult

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Floar

toFixed

static mult

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):