Benchmark: lodash.round VS toFixed() wth parseint

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var x = 5.236;

Tests:

Round floating number using lodash round function
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { _.round(x,2); }
Round floating number using toFixed()
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { parseInt(x.toFixed(2)); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Round floating number using lodash round function
Round floating number using toFixed()

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 and explain what is being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**What is being tested?**

The test case compares two approaches to rounding a floating-point number:

1. Using the `_.round()` function from the Lodash library.
2. Using the native `toFixed()` method in JavaScript.

**Comparison options:**

* **Lodash _.round()**: This option uses the `_` (underscore) utility function from Lodash, which rounds a value to a given precision.
* **JavaScript `toFixed()`**: This option uses the built-in `toFixed()` method to round a number to a specified number of decimal places.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Lodash _.round()**:
	+ Pros:
		- Can handle various rounding modes (e.g., "ceiling", "floor").
		- Can be used with other Lodash utilities.
	+ Cons:
		- Adds an external dependency (Lodash).
		- May have a higher overhead due to the function call and potential caching.
* **JavaScript `toFixed()`**:
	+ Pros:
		- Built-in, no additional dependencies required.
		- Often faster and more efficient than using a library.
	+ Cons:
		- Only allows for rounding to a fixed number of decimal places.
		- May not provide the same level of precision as Lodash's rounding modes.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a collection of helper functions, including _.round(). The purpose of this library is to provide a convenient way to perform common tasks, such as rounding numbers, without having to write custom code. In this benchmark, Lodash is used to implement the _.round() function.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The comparison focuses solely on the two approaches to rounding floating-point numbers.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives for rounding numbers, here are a few options:

* **Math.round()**: This is another built-in method in JavaScript that rounds a number to the nearest integer.
* **Decimal.js**: This is a library specifically designed for decimal arithmetic and provides more advanced rounding modes than JavaScript's built-in methods.

Overall, this benchmark provides a simple and informative comparison of two approaches to rounding floating-point numbers. While Lodash's _.round() function offers flexibility and convenience, the native `toFixed()` method may be a better choice when performance is critical or you prefer a lightweight solution.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/87.0.4280.88 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 87 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Round floating number using lodash round function	917.5 Ops/sec
Round floating number using toFixed()	1824.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash.round VS toFixed() wth parseint (version: 0)

Compare round lodash function vs javascript native toFixed() function

Comparing performance of: Round floating number using lodash round function vs Round floating number using toFixed()

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Round floating number using lodash round function

Round floating number using toFixed()

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):