Benchmark: toPrecision - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var v=982173129.981279
var p=12

Tests:

Number(v.toPrecision(p))
Number(v.toPrecision(p));
_p=Math.pow(10,p-Math.ceil(Math.log10(v)));Math.round(v*_p)/_p
var _p=Math.pow(10,p-Math.ceil(Math.log10(v)));Math.round(v*_p)/_p;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Number(v.toPrecision(p))
_p=Math.pow(10,p-Math.ceil(Math.log10(v)));Math.round(v*_p)/_p

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help explain what's being tested in this JavaScript benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition provides some essential information about the test case:

* **Name**: The name of the benchmark, which is "toPrecision".
* **Description**: An empty description, indicating that no specific performance characteristics of the test are relevant.
* **Script Preparation Code**: A short script that initializes two variables: `v` with a large number (982173129.981279) and `p` with a value of 12.
* **Html Preparation Code**: Empty, suggesting that no HTML-specific preparation is needed.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of two different approaches to round a large number (`v`) to a specified precision (`p`):

1. **Using `Number(v.toPrecision(p))`:**
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and straightforward.
		+ Uses the built-in `toPrecision()` method, which is optimized for performance.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the overhead of calling a built-in method with multiple arguments.
2. **Using `_p=Math.pow(10,p-Math.ceil(Math.log10(v)));Math.round(v*_p)/_p`:**
	* Pros:
		+ More control over the rounding process, allowing for potential optimizations.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires manual implementation of a custom rounding function.

**Pros and Cons**

The choice between these two approaches depends on factors such as:

* Performance: The built-in `toPrecision()` method is likely to be faster due to its optimized implementation. However, the custom approach might be faster if it can be optimized further.
* Control: If you need more control over the rounding process, using a custom function might be preferable.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. The `Math` object is utilized for mathematical functions like `log10()` and `ceil()`, which are part of the standard JavaScript library.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax (none)**

There are no special features or syntax used in this benchmark that would require additional explanation.

**Other Alternatives**

Alternative approaches to rounding numbers include:

* Using a fixed-point arithmetic representation, where the number is represented as a sum of powers of a base value (e.g., `10`).
* Utilizing a library like [Decimal.js](https://mikulisko.github.io/decimal.js/) for precise arithmetic operations.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be directly comparable to the built-in methods used in this benchmark, as they often require additional setup and configuration.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/92.0.4515.159 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 92 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Number(v.toPrecision(p))	1231508.5 Ops/sec
_p=Math.pow(10,p-Math.ceil(Math.log10(v)));Math.round(v*_p)/_p	896504.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

toPrecision (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Number(v.toPrecision(p)) vs _p=Math.pow(10,p-Math.ceil(Math.log10(v)));Math.round(v*_p)/_p

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Number(v.toPrecision(p))

_p=Math.pow(10,p-Math.ceil(Math.log10(v)));Math.round(v*_p)/_p

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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