Benchmark: Round expo vs round normal

Script Preparation code:

window.roundExpo = (val, precision) => { const m = 10 ** (precision || 0); return Math.round(val * m) / m; }
window.round = (val, precision) => { return Math.round(val * precision) / precision; }

Tests:

Round Normal
round(Math.random(), 1000)
Round Expo
roundExpo(Math.random(), 3)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Round Normal
Round Expo

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 benchmark and its options.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing two different ways of rounding numbers in JavaScript: `Math.round()` with no explicit precision (the "normal" method) versus a custom implementation called `roundExpo()`. The goal is to determine which approach is faster and more efficient.

**Options compared:**

1. **`Math.round()`**: This is the standard, built-in function for rounding numbers in JavaScript. It rounds to the nearest integer.
2. **`roundExpo()`**: A custom implementation that uses exponentiation to scale the input value before rounding. The purpose of this approach is likely to provide more accurate results at the cost of additional computation.

**Pros and cons:**

1. **`Math.round()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Easy to implement
		+ Fast, as it's a built-in function.
	* Cons:
		+ May lead to rounding errors if not used carefully (e.g., when dealing with decimal numbers).
2. **`roundExpo()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can provide more accurate results, especially for decimal numbers.
	* Cons:
		+ Slower than `Math.round()`, as it involves an additional computation step.

**Library usage:**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, since both `roundExpo()` and the standard `Math.round()` function are being compared, it's likely that MeasureThat.net aims to provide a fair test without relying on any external libraries or frameworks.

**Special JS features/syntax:**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are explicitly used in this benchmark. Both approaches rely solely on built-in functions and basic arithmetic operations.

**Other alternatives:**

If you were to reimplement this benchmark, you could consider additional options, such as:

1. **Using a different rounding algorithm**: Other algorithms like the bankers' rounding (also known as "round half to even") or the Rounding Half To Even algorithm might be used.
2. **Testing with larger input values**: Increasing the precision or range of the input numbers could help identify performance differences between `Math.round()` and `roundExpo()`.
3. **Adding more browsers or devices**: Testing on different platforms, browsers, or architectures could provide a more comprehensive understanding of performance variations.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require modifying the benchmark definition and test cases to accommodate the changes.

The benchmark's results are provided for two test cases:

1. `Round Normal`: Tests the standard `Math.round()` function with an input value generated by `Math.random()` and a precision of 1000.
2. `Round Expo`: Tests the custom `roundExpo()` function with an input value generated by `Math.random()` and a precision of 3.

These results are likely to show that `roundExpo()` is slower than `Math.round()`, but may provide more accurate results for certain inputs.

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/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Round Normal	3703959.2 Ops/sec
Round Expo	3872976.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Round expo vs round normal (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Round Normal vs Round Expo

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Round Normal

Round Expo

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):