Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() vs Math.floorfast 2
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
toFixed(4) vs toPrecision(4).toString() vs (Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString() vs Math.floor fast
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var someFloat = 0.123456789;
Tests:
toFixed(4)
someFloat.toFixed(4);
toPrecision(4).toString()
someFloat.toPrecision(4);
(Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString()
(Math.round(someFloat*10000)/10000);
Math.floor fast
~~(someFloat * Number(`1${'0'.repeat(4)}`)) / Number(`1${'0'.repeat(4)}`);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (4)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
toFixed(4)
toPrecision(4).toString()
(Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString()
Math.floor fast
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):
The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case on the MeasureThat.net website. The benchmark measures the performance of four different methods for rounding or formatting floating-point numbers: `toFixed`, `toPrecision`, `Math.round()`, and `Math.floorfast` (also known as "fast math" mode). **Options being compared:** 1. **`toFixed(4)`**: This method formats a number to have a specified number of decimal places. 2. **`toPrecision(4).toString()`**: This method is equivalent to `toFixed(4)`, but it also returns the string representation of the result, which may incur additional overhead. 3. **`(Math.round(someFloat*10000)/10000).toString()`**: This method uses a roundabout approach to achieve rounding by multiplying the number by 10,000, rounding using `Math.round()`, and then dividing by 10,000. It returns the string representation of the result. 4. **`Math.floorfast someFloat`**: This method uses "fast math" mode to perform floating-point operations, which can be faster than regular `Math.floor()` but is not guaranteed to produce the same results. **Pros and cons of each approach:** 1. **`toFixed(4)`**: * Pros: Simple, efficient, and accurate. * Cons: May not work well with very large or very small numbers due to rounding errors. 2. **`toPrecision(4).toString()`**: * Pros: Similar to `toFixed(4)`, but returns the string representation of the result, which may be useful in certain contexts. * Cons: Involves additional overhead due to string conversion and potentially slower performance. 3. **`(Math.round(someFloat*10000)/10000).toString()`**: * Pros: Avoids using `toFixed()` or `toPrecision()`, which can be slower, but the roundabout approach may incur additional overhead due to unnecessary multiplications. * Cons: Less intuitive and less efficient than other approaches. 4. **`Math.floorfast someFloat`**: * Pros: Can be faster than regular `Math.floor()` for floating-point operations, especially for large numbers. * Cons: Not guaranteed to produce the same results as regular `Math.floor()`, which can lead to rounding errors. **Library used:** None explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it is likely that MeasureThat.net uses a JavaScript engine or runtime environment that provides these functions and other necessary libraries for running benchmarks. No special JavaScript features or syntax are being tested in this benchmark.
Related benchmarks:
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() vs Math.floorfaster test
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() to 1 decimal place
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() asd
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() 2 decimal
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() 22222
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?