Benchmark: toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() 7 places

Script Preparation code:

var someFloat = 0.123456789123456;

Tests:

toFixed(7)
someFloat.toFixed(7);
toPrecision(7)
someFloat.toPrecision(7)
(Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString()
(Math.round(someFloat*10000000)/10000000)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toFixed(7)
toPrecision(7)
(Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:100.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/100.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 100 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toFixed(7)	13907641.0 Ops/sec
toPrecision(7)	11618091.0 Ops/sec
(Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString()	1708313728.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between three methods to format floating-point numbers with a specific number of decimal places: `toFixed()`, `toPrecision()`, and a custom approach using `Math.round()`.

**Options being compared:**

1. **`toFixed(7)`**: This method returns a string representing the number with 7 decimal places, padded with zeros if necessary.
2. **`toPrecision(7)`**: This method returns a string representing the number in scientific notation with 7 significant figures.
3. **Custom approach:** `(Math.round(someFloat*10000000)/10000000).toString()`.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. `toFixed(7)`: Pros:
	* Easy to understand and use.
	* Works well for most cases.
Cons:
	* May lead to unnecessary decimal places if the number is an integer.
	* Can be slower than other methods due to string concatenation.
2. `toPrecision(7)`: Pros:
	* More flexible than `toFixed()` for large numbers.
	* Can be faster than `toFixed()` for very small or very large numbers.
Cons:
	* May not work well for integers or very small decimal numbers.
	* Can lead to more complex string representations.
3. Custom approach: `(Math.round(someFloat*10000000)/10000000).toString()`: Pros:
	* Avoids using `toFixed()` and `toPrecision()` methods, which can be slower.
Cons:
	* More complex and harder to understand than the other two approaches.
	* May not work well for edge cases (e.g., very small or very large numbers).

**Library usage:**

None of the provided options use any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines may optimize certain functions or methods internally.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

There are no special features or syntax used in this benchmark. It only relies on standard JavaScript functionality.

**Other alternatives:**

If you need to format floating-point numbers with a specific number of decimal places, other options might include:

1. Using the `Number.toFixed()` method with a different precision.
2. Implementing your own formatting function using string manipulation and arithmetic operations.
3. Utilizing third-party libraries like Moment.js for date and time formatting.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() 7 places (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toFixed(7) vs toPrecision(7) vs (Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString()

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toFixed(7)

toPrecision(7)

(Math.round(*10000)/10000).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):