Benchmark: toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() vs Math.floorfast vs new Math.trunc str dynamic

toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() vs Math.floorfast vs new Math.trunc str dynamic (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toFixed(4) vs toPrecision(4).toString() vs (Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString() vs Math.floor fast vs the new Math.trunc

Comparing performance of: toFixed(4) someFloat.toFixed(4); someFloat.t vs toPrecision(4).toString() vs (Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString() vs Math.floor fast vs Math.trunc

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Script Preparation code:

var someFloat = 0.123456789;

Tests:

toFixed(4) someFloat.toFixed(4); someFloat.t
someFloat.toFixed(4);
toPrecision(4).toString()
someFloat.toPrecision(4);
(Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString()
(Math.round(someFloat*(~~(`1${'0'.repeat(4)}`)))/(~~(`1${'0'.repeat(4)}`)));
Math.floor fast
~~(someFloat * (~~(`1${'0'.repeat(4)}`))) / (~~(`1${'0'.repeat(4)}`));
Math.trunc
Math.trunc(someFloat * (~~(`1${'0'.repeat(4)}`))) / (~~(`1${'0'.repeat(4)}`));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toFixed(4) someFloat.toFixed(4); someFloat.t
toPrecision(4).toString()
(Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString()
Math.floor fast
Math.trunc

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/102.0.4972.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 102 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toFixed(4) someFloat.toFixed(4); someFloat.t	4662408.5 Ops/sec
toPrecision(4).toString()	4885182.0 Ops/sec
(Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString()	2942114.0 Ops/sec
Math.floor fast	5941150.5 Ops/sec
Math.trunc	2920479.0 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 benchmark and explain what is being tested, the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of different ways to round or truncate a floating-point number in JavaScript. The test cases cover various approaches:

1. `toFixed(4)`: rounds the number to 4 decimal places.
2. `toPrecision(4).toString()`: uses `toPrecision` to specify the precision and then converts the result to a string.
3. `(Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString()`: multiplies the number by 10,000, rounds it using `Math.round`, and then divides by 10,000 to round down to 4 decimal places.
4. `Math.floor fast` (not shown in the benchmark result): uses a faster implementation of `Math.floor`.
5. `Math.trunc`: truncates the number to the nearest integer.

**Options compared**

The options are compared in terms of their execution time, which is measured in executions per second (EPS). The results show that:

* `Math.floor fast` performs better than the other approaches.
* `toFixed(4)` and `(Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString()` are close to each other, but slightly slower than `Math.trunc`.
* `toPrecision(4).toString()` is the slowest option.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **`toFixed(4)`**: Pros: simple and widely supported. Cons: may not work well for very large numbers or floating-point operations.
2. **`toPrecision(4).toString()`**: Pros: more accurate than `toFixed`, but slower due to string conversion. Cons: may be less efficient.
3. **`(Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString()`**: Pros: works well for rounding down to 4 decimal places, but can lead to precision issues with certain numbers. Cons: involves multiplication and division, which can be slow.
4. **`Math.floor fast` (not shown)**: Pros: optimized for performance, likely faster than the other approaches. Cons: not explicitly documented or supported in all browsers.
5. **`Math.trunc`**: Pros: efficient and accurate for truncation. Cons: may not work well with very large numbers or floating-point operations.

**Other considerations**

* The benchmark uses a Windows-based system, so results may not be representative of other platforms.
* The number `someFloat = 0.123456789` is used as the test input, which may affect the results due to its specific value and precision requirements.
* The use of `~~(number)` (bitwise NOT) in some approaches can lead to precision issues or incorrect results.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative ways to round or truncate numbers in JavaScript, consider using:

1. **`Number.EPSILON`**: a small value that represents the smallest difference between two numbers that are considered equal.
2. **`Math.min()` and `Math.max()`**: can be used to round numbers to the nearest integer or decimal place.
3. **`Big.js` or `Decimal.js` libraries**: provide more accurate and efficient ways to work with floating-point numbers, especially for financial or scientific applications.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the original benchmark options.

Related benchmarks:

toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() vs Math.floorfast vs new Math.trunc str dynamic (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toFixed(4) vs toPrecision(4).toString() vs (Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString() vs Math.floor fast vs the new Math.trunc

Comparing performance of: toFixed(4) someFloat.toFixed(4); someFloat.t vs toPrecision(4).toString() vs (Math.round(*10000)/10000).toString() vs Math.floor fast vs Math.trunc

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toFixed(4) someFloat.toFixed(4); someFloat.t

toPrecision(4).toString()

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

Math.floor fast

Math.trunc

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):