Benchmark: toFixed vs toPrecision 3

Script Preparation code:

var someFloat = 0.123456789;

Tests:

toFixed(4)
someFloat.toFixed(4);
toPrecision(4)
someFloat.toPrecision(4)
Math.floor
Math.floor(someFloat * 10000)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toFixed(4)
toPrecision(4)
Math.floor

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is being tested, the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents the script that will be executed to measure the performance of JavaScript functions. In this case, there are three test cases:

1. `toFixed(4)`: This test case measures the performance of the `toFixed` method on a float value.
2. `toPrecision(4)`: This test case measures the performance of the `toPrecision` method on a float value.
3. `Math.floor`: This test case measures the performance of the `Math.floor` function, which is used to round a number down to the nearest integer.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. `toFixed(4)`: This method rounds a float value to a specified number of decimal places.
2. `toPrecision(4)`: This method rounds a float value to a specified number of significant digits.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* `toFixed(4)`:
	+ Pros: Easy to understand, widely supported by most browsers.
	+ Cons: Can lead to loss of precision if the decimal places are not carefully managed. Also, it only rounds to fixed decimal places (e.g., 0.123 becomes 0.123), whereas `toPrecision` can round to any significant digit (e.g., 1.23 becomes 1.2).
* `toPrecision(4)`:
	+ Pros: More precise than `toFixed`, as it preserves the number of significant digits rather than fixed decimal places.
	+ Cons: Less widely supported by older browsers, and may require more complex calculations to achieve the desired rounding.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. However, some browser-specific features or syntax might be required.

* `toFixed` and `toPrecision` are built-in JavaScript methods that do not require any external library.
* `Math.floor` is a standard JavaScript function that does not require any external library.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is considered standard for most software engineers. If you're familiar with ES6+ features, you might be interested in knowing that these methods are implemented in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), but this is not explicitly mentioned in the benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

* These tests focus on the performance of rounding float values to a specific number of decimal places or significant digits. In real-world scenarios, the choice between `toFixed` and `toPrecision` might depend on other factors such as readability, maintainability, and platform compatibility.
* For more complex calculations involving floating-point numbers, you might want to consider using libraries like [Mathjs](https://mathjs.org/) or [Bignumber.js](http://bignumberjs.org/), which provide more advanced mathematical capabilities.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative methods for rounding float values, here are a few options:

* `Number.EPSILON`: This is a small value that represents the difference between 1 and a number very close to it. You can use this value as a tolerance when comparing floating-point numbers.
* `Float32Array` or `Float64Array`: These types of arrays provide higher precision for floating-point numbers, which might be useful in certain applications.

In summary, this benchmark compares the performance of built-in JavaScript methods `toFixed`, `toPrecision`, and `Math.floor` for rounding float values. While there are pros and cons to each approach, both methods have their use cases in real-world development.

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)	8567918.0 Ops/sec
toPrecision(4)	9569807.0 Ops/sec
Math.floor	10793578.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

toFixed vs toPrecision 3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toFixed(4) vs toPrecision(4) vs Math.floor

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toFixed(4)

toPrecision(4)

Math.floor

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):