Benchmark: toPrecision vs mathjs round

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjs/10.0.0/math.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var num = -6.864601706668172e-10

Tests:

toPrecision
parseFloat(num.toPrecision(8))
mathjs.round
math.round(num, 8)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toPrecision
mathjs.round

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark JSON and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The first part of the JSON represents the overall benchmark definition, which includes:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark, "toPrecision vs mathjs round".
* `Description`: An empty string, indicating that no description is provided for this benchmark.
* `Script Preparation Code`: A JavaScript code snippet that defines a variable `num` with a very small negative decimal value using scientific notation (`-6.864601706668172e-10`).
* `Html Preparation Code`: A script tag that includes the Math.js library (version 10.0.0) from a CDN.

**Individual Test Cases**

The second part of the JSON represents two individual test cases, each with:

* `Benchmark Definition`: The actual benchmark code snippet to be executed.
* `Test Name`: The name assigned to each test case.

In this case, we have two test cases:

1. `toPrecision`
	* Benchmark Definition: `parseFloat(num.toPrecision(8))`
	* Purpose: This test compares the performance of `parseFloat` with a precision set using `toPrecision`.
2. `mathjs.round`
	* Benchmark Definition: `math.round(num, 8)`
	* Purpose: This test compares the performance of Math.js's `round` function with a specified precision.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare two different approaches to achieving a certain level of precision in floating-point numbers:

1. Using `parseFloat` with a precision set using `toPrecision`.
2. Using Math.js's `round` function with a specified precision.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Using `parseFloat` with a precision set using `toPrecision`**:
	+ Pros:
		- More flexible, as the precision can be adjusted independently.
		- Easier to implement, as it's based on standard JavaScript functionality.
	+ Cons:
		- May not perform well for very large or very small numbers due to floating-point precision issues.
* **Using Math.js's `round` function with a specified precision**:
	+ Pros:
		- Optimized for performance and may be faster than using `parseFloat`.
		- Can handle very large or very small numbers more accurately due to specialized implementation.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires an external library, which may introduce additional overhead.
		- May not be as flexible as using `parseFloat` with a precision set.

**Library: Math.js**

Math.js is a JavaScript library that provides various mathematical functions and utilities. In this benchmark, it's used to implement the `round` function, which is being compared to `parseFloat`.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax (Not Applicable)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark without using Math.js, you could use other libraries like:

* `decimal.js`: A library that provides decimal arithmetic operations.
* `Big.js`: A library that provides arbitrary-precision arithmetic operations.

Alternatively, you could implement the rounding logic yourself using standard JavaScript functionality. However, this may not be as efficient or accurate as using a specialized library like Math.js.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/103.0.5060.53 Safari/537.36 Edg/103.0.1264.37

Browser/OS: Chrome 103 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toPrecision	2125437.5 Ops/sec
mathjs.round	372349.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

toPrecision vs mathjs round (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toPrecision vs mathjs.round

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

toPrecision

mathjs.round

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):