Benchmark: toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() feat. Math.pow

Script Preparation code:

var randomFloat = 0.123456789;

Tests:

toFixed(6)
Number(randomFloat.toFixed(6));
toPrecision(6)
Number(randomFloat.toPrecision(6));
Math.round()
Math.round(randomFloat*Math.pow(10,6) / Math.pow(10,6))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toFixed(6)
toPrecision(6)
Math.round()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/105.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 105 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toFixed(6)	735316.2 Ops/sec
toPrecision(6)	805343.8 Ops/sec
Math.round()	812378.7 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The `Name` field specifies that this is a comparison between three approaches:

1. `toFixed(6)`: This uses the built-in JavaScript method to convert a number to a string with a specified number of decimal places.
2. `toPrecision(6)`: This also converts a number to a string, but it allows more precision than `toFixed`, making it suitable for cases where an exact representation is required.
3. `Math.round(number * Math.pow(10, 6) / Math.pow(10, 6))`: This approach uses the `Math.round` function with a multiplier of 1 million to achieve the same result as `toFixed(6)` and `toPrecision(6)`.

**Pros and Cons**

Each approach has its advantages:

* `toFixed(6)`: Easy to use and works well for most cases, but can lead to rounding errors if the input number is not a multiple of 10^(-6).
* `toPrecision(6)`: More precise than `toFixed`, but slower due to the additional computation required to calculate the precision.
* `Math.round(number * Math.pow(10, 6) / Math.pow(10, 6))`: The most accurate approach, but requires more computation and may be slower than the other two.

**Library**

None of these approaches rely on any specific JavaScript library.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The `toFixed` and `toPrecision` methods are part of the ECMAScript standard and have been supported in JavaScript since its inception. The `Math.round` function is also a built-in method that has been available since the earliest versions of JavaScript.

**Other Alternatives**

If you needed to achieve this functionality without using these specific approaches, you could consider:

* Using a library like `decimal.js` or `bonum decimal` for precise arithmetic operations.
* Implementing your own custom rounding function using bitwise shifts and divisions (less accurate than the built-in methods).
* Using string manipulation to convert numbers to strings with a specified number of decimal places.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided script preparation code generates a random floating-point number `randomFloat` with six decimal places, which is used as input for each benchmark.

In summary, this benchmark compares the performance of three different approaches for converting a floating-point number to a string with six decimal places: `toFixed`, `toPrecision`, and `Math.round`.

Related benchmarks:

toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() feat. Math.pow (version: 0)

Let's see which is faster and slower! toFixed(6) vs toPrecision(6) vs Math.round(number*Math.pow(10,6) / Math.pow(10,6))

Comparing performance of: toFixed(6) vs toPrecision(6) vs Math.round()

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

toFixed(6)

toPrecision(6)

Math.round()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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