Benchmark: Benchmark math.round *100/100 vs toFixed(2)

Script Preparation code:

var someFloat = 0.123456789;

Tests:

toFixed(2)
someFloat.toFixed(4);
math.round()*100 /100
(Math.round(someFloat*100)/100)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toFixed(2)
math.round()*100 /100

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures two different ways to round a floating-point number in JavaScript:

1. `toFixed(4)`: This method rounds the number to 4 decimal places, effectively rounding it to 2 decimal places with no intermediate steps.
2. `(Math.round(someFloat*100)/100)`: This approach first multiplies the float by 100, then rounds the result using `Math.round()`, and finally divides by 100.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code sets a variable `someFloat` to the value `0.123456789`.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that only JavaScript execution time is being measured.

**Library Used**

In the benchmark definition, we can see that both approaches use the `Math` object, which is a built-in library in JavaScript. The `Math.round()` function is used to round numbers to the nearest integer.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested here. Both approaches only use standard JavaScript syntax and built-in functions.

**Other Alternatives**

To achieve similar results, you could have used other methods to round floating-point numbers in JavaScript:

* Using the `Number` function with a specified number of decimal places (e.g., `Number(someFloat).toFixed(4)`)
* Implementing your own rounding algorithm

However, using built-in functions like `toFixed()` and `Math.round()` is generally recommended because they are efficient and well-tested.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

Here's a brief summary:

1. `toFixed(4)`:
	* Pros: Simple, efficient, and accurate.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for all use cases (e.g., rounding to 2 decimal places with no intermediate steps).
2. `(Math.round(someFloat*100)/100)`: 
	* Pros: Can be useful when you need to round a float to a specific range of values (in this case, from 0 to 1).
	* Cons: May be slower than `toFixed(4)` due to the multiplication and division operations.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The script preparation code sets a variable `someFloat` to the value `0.123456789`. This is a simple test case that isolates the rounding behavior of JavaScript's built-in functions.

By using this code, we can focus on measuring the execution time of the two rounding approaches without introducing any other variables or complexities.

**Individual Test Cases**

The two test cases measure the execution time of the following:

1. `toFixed(2)`: Measures the time it takes to round a float to 2 decimal places.
2. `(Math.round(someFloat*100)/100)`: Measures the time it takes to multiply, round, and divide a float.

These test cases help to understand the relative performance of different rounding approaches in JavaScript.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/112.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 112 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toFixed(2)	20949044.0 Ops/sec
math.round()*100 /100	1994367744.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Benchmark math.round *100/100 vs toFixed(2) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toFixed(2) vs math.round()*100 /100

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toFixed(2)

math.round()*100 /100

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):