Benchmark: toFixed vs toPrecision 2

Script Preparation code:

var someFloat = 0.123456789;

Tests:

toFixed(4)
someFloat.toFixed(4);
toPrecision(4).toString()
someFloat.toPrecision(4)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toFixed(4)
toPrecision(4).toString()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of two JavaScript functions: `toFixed` and `toPrecision`. Both functions are used to format numbers as strings.

**Options being compared**

* `toFixed(4)`: This function formats the number as a fixed-point string with 4 decimal places. It rounds the number to the nearest integer if it has no fractional part.
* `toPrecision(4).toString()`: This approach is slightly different from `toFixed`. The `toPrecision` function formats the number with a specified number of significant digits (in this case, 4), but leaves the last digit as a decimal point. When converting the result to a string using `toString()`, the trailing zeros are removed.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`toFixed(4)`**: Pros:
	+ Simple and straightforward implementation.
	+ Good for simple use cases where rounding is not required.
* Cons:
	+ May lose precision if the input number has a fractional part with more than 4 significant digits.
	+ The resulting string may have trailing zeros, which can be undesirable in some cases.
* **`toPrecision(4).toString()`**: Pros:
	+ Preserves more precision compared to `toFixed`, as it leaves the last digit as a decimal point.
	+ Allows for more control over the number of significant digits displayed.
* Cons:
	+ More complex implementation, which may introduce overhead.
	+ May not be suitable for simple use cases where rounding is required.

**Library usage**

None. The benchmark uses only built-in JavaScript functions: `toFixed`, `toPrecision`, and `toString()`.

**Special JS features or syntax**

This benchmark does not utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as ES6 modules, async/await, or promises. It focuses solely on the performance comparison of two basic number formatting methods.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for formatting numbers in JavaScript include:

* Using a library like ` numeral.js` or `format.js`, which provide more advanced formatting options and can be more efficient than built-in functions.
* Utilizing a CSS-based approach to format numbers, using classes like `numeral` or `money.js`.
* Implementing custom formatting logic using regular expressions or other string manipulation techniques.

Note that the choice of formatting method depends on the specific requirements of your application, such as precision, rounding, and display format.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toFixed(4)	8798168.0 Ops/sec
toPrecision(4).toString()	9765129.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

toFixed vs toPrecision 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toFixed(4) vs toPrecision(4).toString()

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toFixed(4)

toPrecision(4).toString()

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):