How can I find the length of a number? - javascript

I'm looking to get the length of a number in JavaScript or jQuery?
I've tried value.length without any success, do I need to convert this to a string first?


var x = 1234567;
x.toString().length;
This process will also work forFloat Number and for Exponential number also.


Ok, so many answers, but this is a pure math one, just for the fun or for remembering that Math is Important:
var len = Math.ceil(Math.log(num + 1) / Math.LN10);
This actually gives the "length" of the number even if it's in exponential form. num is supposed to be a non negative integer here: if it's negative, take its absolute value and adjust the sign afterwards.
Update for ES2015
Now that Math.log10 is a thing, you can simply write
const len = Math.ceil(Math.log10(num + 1));


Could also use a template string:
const num = 123456
`${num}`.length // 6


You have to make the number to string in order to take length
var num = 123;
alert((num + "").length);
or
alert(num.toString().length);


I've been using this functionality in node.js, this is my fastest implementation so far:
var nLength = function(n) {
return (Math.log(Math.abs(n)+1) * 0.43429448190325176 | 0) + 1; 
}
It should handle positive and negative integers (also in exponential form) and should return the length of integer part in floats.
The following reference should provide some insight into the method:
Weisstein, Eric W. "Number Length." From MathWorld--A Wolfram Web Resource.
I believe that some bitwise operation can replace the Math.abs, but jsperf shows that Math.abs works just fine in the majority of js engines.
Update: As noted in the comments, this solution has some issues :(
Update2 (workaround) : I believe that at some point precision issues kick in and the Math.log(...)*0.434... just behaves unexpectedly. However, if Internet Explorer or Mobile devices are not your cup of tea, you can replace this operation with the Math.log10 function. In Node.js I wrote a quick basic test with the function nLength = (n) => 1 + Math.log10(Math.abs(n) + 1) | 0; and with Math.log10 it worked as expected. Please note that Math.log10 is not universally supported.


There are three way to do it.
var num = 123;
alert(num.toString().length);
better performance one (best performance in ie11)
var num = 123;
alert((num + '').length);
Math (best performance in Chrome, firefox but slowest in ie11)
var num = 123
alert(Math.floor( Math.log(num) / Math.LN10 ) + 1)
there is a jspref here
http://jsperf.com/fastest-way-to-get-the-first-in-a-number/2


You should go for the simplest one (stringLength), readability always beats speed. But if you care about speed here are some below.
Three different methods all with varying speed.
// 34ms
let weissteinLength = function(n) {
return (Math.log(Math.abs(n)+1) * 0.43429448190325176 | 0) + 1;
}
// 350ms
let stringLength = function(n) {
return n.toString().length;
}
// 58ms
let mathLength = function(n) {
return Math.ceil(Math.log(n + 1) / Math.LN10);
}
// Simple tests below if you care about performance.
let iterations = 1000000;
let maxSize = 10000;
// ------ Weisstein length.
console.log("Starting weissteinLength length.");
let startTime = Date.now();
for (let index = 0; index < iterations; index++) {
weissteinLength(Math.random() * maxSize);
}
console.log("Ended weissteinLength length. Took : " + (Date.now() - startTime ) + "ms");
// ------- String length slowest.
console.log("Starting string length.");
startTime = Date.now();
for (let index = 0; index < iterations; index++) {
stringLength(Math.random() * maxSize);
}
console.log("Ended string length. Took : " + (Date.now() - startTime ) + "ms");
// ------- Math length.
console.log("Starting math length.");
startTime = Date.now();
for (let index = 0; index < iterations; index++) {
mathLength(Math.random() * maxSize);
}


First convert it to a string:
var mynumber = 123;
alert((""+mynumber).length);
Adding an empty string to it will implicitly cause mynumber to turn into a string.


Well without converting the integer to a string you could make a funky loop:
var number = 20000;
var length = 0;
for(i = number; i > 1; ++i){
++length;
i = Math.floor(i/10);
}
alert(length);​
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/maniator/G8tQE/


I got asked a similar question in a test.
Find a number's length without converting to string
const numbers = [1, 10, 100, 12, 123, -1, -10, -100, -12, -123, 0, -0]
const numberLength = number => {
let length = 0
let n = Math.abs(number)
do {
n /= 10
length++
} while (n >= 1)
return length
}
console.log(numbers.map(numberLength)) // [ 1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 1, 1 ]
Negative numbers were added to complicate it a little more, hence the Math.abs().


I'm perplex about converting into a string the given number because such an algorithm won't be robust and will be prone to errors: it will show all its limitations especially in case it has to evaluate very long numbers. In fact before converting the long number into a string it will "collapse" into its exponential notation equivalent (example: 1.2345e4). This notation will be converted into a string and this resulting string will be evaluated for returning its length. All of this will give a wrong result. So I suggest not to use that approach.
Have a look at the following code and run the code snippet to compare the different behaviors:
let num = 116234567891011121415113441236542134465236441625344625344625623456723423523429798771121411511034412365421344652364416253446253446254461253446221314623879235441623683749283441136232514654296853446323214617456789101112141511344122354416236837492834411362325146542968534463232146172368374928344113623251465429685;
let lenFromMath;
let lenFromString;
// The suggested way:
lenFromMath = Math.ceil(Math.log10(num + 1)); // this works in fact returns 309
// The discouraged way:
lenFromString = String(num).split("").length; // this doesn't work in fact returns 23
/*It is also possible to modify the prototype of the primitive "Number" (but some programmer might suggest this is not a good practice). But this is will also work:*/
Number.prototype.lenght = () => {return Math.ceil(Math.log10(num + 1));}
lenFromPrototype = num.lenght();
console.log({lenFromMath, lenFromPrototype, lenFromString});


A way for integers or for length of the integer part without banal converting to string:
var num = 9999999999; // your number
if (num < 0) num = -num; // this string for negative numbers
var length = 1;
while (num >= 10) {
num /= 10;
length++;
}
alert(length);


I would like to correct the #Neal answer which was pretty good for integers, but the number 1 would return a length of 0 in the previous case.
function Longueur(numberlen)
{
var length = 0, i; //define `i` with `var` as not to clutter the global scope
numberlen = parseInt(numberlen);
for(i = numberlen; i >= 1; i)
{
++length;
i = Math.floor(i/10);
}
return length;
}


To get the number of relevant digits (if the leading decimal part is 0 then the whole part has a length of 0) of any number separated by whole part and decimal part I use:
function getNumberLength(x) {
let numberText = x.toString();
let exp = 0;
if (numberText.includes('e')) {
const [coefficient, base] = numberText.split('e');
exp = parseInt(base, 10);
numberText = coefficient;
}
const [whole, decimal] = numberText.split('.');
const wholeLength = whole === '0' ? 0 : whole.length;
const decimalLength = decimal ? decimal.length : 0;
return {
whole: wholeLength > -exp ? wholeLength + exp : 0,
decimal: decimalLength > exp ? decimalLength - exp : 0,
};
}


var x = 1234567;
String(x).length;
It is shorter than with .toString() (which in the accepted answer).


Try this:
$("#element").text().length;
Example of it in use


Yes you need to convert to string in order to find the length.For example
var x=100;// type of x is number
var x=100+"";// now the type of x is string
document.write(x.length);//which would output 3.

Related

Is there a way to avoid number to string conversion & nested loops for performance?

I just took a coding test online and this one question really bothered me. My solution was correct but was rejected for being unoptimized. The question is as following:
Write a function combineTheGivenNumber taking two arguments:
numArray: number[]
num: a number
The function should check all the concatenation pairs that can result in making a number equal to num and return their count.
E.g. if numArray = [1, 212, 12, 12] & num = 1212 then we will have return value of 3 from combineTheGivenNumber
The pairs are as following:
numArray[0]+numArray[1]
numArray[2]+numArray[3]
numArray[3]+numArray[2]
The function I wrote for this purpose is as following:
function combineTheGivenNumber(numArray, num) {
//convert all numbers to strings for easy concatenation
numArray = numArray.map(e => e+'');
//also convert the `hay` to string for easy comparison
num = num+'';
let pairCounts = 0;
// itereate over the array to get pairs
numArray.forEach((e,i) => {
numArray.forEach((f,j) => {
if(i!==j && num === (e+f)) {
pairCounts++;
}
});
});
return pairCounts;
}
console.log('Test 1: ', combineTheGivenNumber([1,212,12,12],1212));
console.log('Test 2: ', combineTheGivenNumber([4,21,42,1],421));
From my experience, I know conversion of number to string is slow in JS, but I am not sure whether my approach is wrong/lack of knowledge or does the tester is ignorant of this fact. Can anyone suggest further optimization of the code snipped?
Elimination of string to number to string will be a significant speed boost but I am not sure how to check for concatenated numbers otherwise.

Elimination of string to number to string will be a significant speed boost
No, it won't.
Firstly, you're not converting strings to numbers anywhere, but more importantly the exercise asks for concatenation so working with strings is exactly what you should do. No idea why they're even passing numbers. You're doing fine already by doing the conversion only once for each number input, not every time your form a pair. And last but not least, avoiding the conversion will not be a significant improvement.
To get a significant improvement, you should use a better algorithm. #derpirscher is correct in his comment: "[It's] the nested loop checking every possible combination which hits the time limit. For instance for your example, when the outer loop points at 212 you don't need to do any checks, because regardless, whatever you concatenate to 212, it can never result in 1212".
So use
let pairCounts = 0;
numArray.forEach((e,i) => {
if (num.startsWith(e)) {
//^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
numArray.forEach((f,j) => {
if (i !== j && num === e+f) {
pairCounts++;
}
});
}
});
You might do the same with suffixes, but it becomes more complicated to rule out concatenation to oneself there.
Optimising further, you can even achieve a linear complexity solution by putting the strings in a lookup structure, then when finding a viable prefix just checking whether the missing part is an available suffix:
function combineTheGivenNumber(numArray, num) {
const strings = new Map();
for (const num of numArray) {
const str = String(num);
strings.set(str, 1 + (strings.get(str) ?? 0));
}
const whole = String(num);
let pairCounts = 0;
for (const [prefix, pCount] of strings) {
if (!whole.startsWith(prefix))
continue;
const suffix = whole.slice(prefix.length);
if (strings.has(suffix)) {
let sCount = strings.get(suffix);
if (suffix == prefix) sCount--; // no self-concatenation
pairCounts += pCount*sCount;
}
}
return pairCounts;
}
(the proper handling of duplicates is a bit difficile)

I like your approach of going to strings early. I can suggest a couple of simple optimizations.
You only need the numbers that are valid "first parts" and those that are valid "second parts"
You can use the javascript .startsWith and .endsWith to test for those conditions. All other strings can be thrown away.
The lengths of the strings must add up to the length of the desired answer
Suppose your target string is 8 digits long. If you have 2 valid 3-digit "first parts", then you only need to know how many valid 5-digit "second parts" you have. Suppose you have 9 of them. Those first parts can only combine with those second parts, and give you 2 * 9 = 18 valid pairs.
You don't actually need to keep the strings!
It struck me that if you know you have 2 valid 3-digit "first parts", you don't need to keep those actual strings. Knowing that they are valid 2-digit first parts is all you need to know.
So let's build an array containing:
How many valid 1-digit first parts do we have?,
How many valid 2-digit first parts do we have?,
How many valid 3-digit first parts do we have?,
etc.
And similarly an array containing the number of valid 1-digit second parts, etc.
X first parts and Y second parts can be combined in X * Y ways
Except if the parts are the same length, in which case we are reusing the same list, and so it is just X * (Y-1).
So not only do we not need to keep the strings, but we only need to do the multiplication of the appropriate elements of the arrays.
5 1-char first parts & 7 3-char second parts = 5 * 7 = 35 pairs
6 2-char first part & 4 2-char second parts = 6 * (4-1) = 18 pairs
etc
So this becomes extremely easy. One pass over the strings, tallying the "first part" and "second part" matches of each length. This can be done with an if and a ++ of the relevant array element.
Then one pass over the lengths, which will be very quick as the array of lengths will be very much shorter than the array of actual strings.
function combineTheGivenNumber(numArray, num) {
const sElements = numArray.map(e => "" + e);
const sTarget = "" + num;
const targetLength = sTarget.length
const startsByLen = (new Array(targetLength)).fill(0);
const endsByLen = (new Array(targetLength)).fill(0);
sElements.forEach(sElement => {
if (sTarget.startsWith(sElement)) {
startsByLen[sElement.length]++
}
if (sTarget.endsWith(sElement)) {
endsByLen[sElement.length]++
}
})
// We can now throw away the strings. We have two separate arrays:
// startsByLen[1] is the count of strings (without attempting to remove duplicates) which are the first character of the required answer
// startsByLen[2] similarly the count of strings which are the first 2 characters of the required answer
// etc.
// and endsByLen[1] is the count of strings which are the last character ...
// and endsByLen[2] is the count of strings which are the last 2 characters, etc.
let pairCounts = 0;
for (let firstElementLength = 1; firstElementLength < targetLength; firstElementLength++) {
const secondElementLength = targetLength - firstElementLength;
if (firstElementLength === secondElementLength) {
pairCounts += startsByLen[firstElementLength] * (endsByLen[secondElementLength] - 1)
} else {
pairCounts += startsByLen[firstElementLength] * endsByLen[secondElementLength]
}
}
return pairCounts;
}
console.log('Test 1: ', combineTheGivenNumber([1, 212, 12, 12], 1212));
console.log('Test 2: ', combineTheGivenNumber([4, 21, 42, 1], 421));

Depending on a setup, the integer slicing can be marginally faster
Although in the end it falls short
Also, when tested on higher N values, the previous answer exploded in jsfiddle. Possibly a memory error.
As far as I have tested with both random and hand-crafted values, my solution holds. It is based on an observation, that if X, Y concantenated == Z, then following must be true:
Z - Y == X * 10^(floor(log10(Y)) + 1)
an example of this:
1212 - 12 = 1200
12 * 10^(floor((log10(12)) + 1) = 12 * 10^(1+1) = 12 * 100 = 1200
Now in theory, this should be faster then manipulating strings. And in many other languages it most likely would be. However in Javascript as I just learned, the situation is a bit more complicated. Javascript does some weird things with casting that I haven't figured out yet. In short - when I tried storing the numbers(and their counts) in a map, the code got significantly slower making any possible gains from this logarithm shenanigans evaporate. Furthermore, storing them in a custom-crafted data structure isn't guaranteed to be faster since you have to build it etc. Also it would be quite a lot of work.
As it stands this log comparison is ~ 8 times faster in a case without(or with just a few) matches since the quadratic factor is yet to kick in. As long as the possible postfix count isn't too high, it will outperform the linear solution. Unfortunately it is still quadratic in nature with the breaking point depending on a total number of strings as well as their length.
So if you are searching for a needle in a haystack - for example you are looking for a few pairs in a huge heap of numbers, this can help. In the other case of searching for many matches, this won't help. Similarly, if the input array was sorted, you could use binary search to push the breaking point further up.
In the end, unless you manage to figure out how to store ints in a map(or some custom implementation of it) in a way that doesn't completely kill the performance, the linear solution of the previous answer will be faster. It can still be useful even with the performance hit if your computation is going to be memory heavy. Storing numbers takes less space then storing strings.
var log10 = Math.log(10)
function log10floored(num) {
return Math.floor(Math.log(num) / log10)
}
function combineTheGivenNumber(numArray, num) {
count = 0
for (var i=0; i!=numArray.length; i++) {
let portion = num - numArray[i]
let removedPart = Math.pow(10, log10floored(numArray[i]))
if (portion % (removedPart * 10) == 0) {
for (var j=0; j!=numArray.length; j++) {
if (j != i && portion / (removedPart * 10) == numArray[j] ) {
count += 1
}
}
}
}
return count
}
//The previous solution, that I used for timing, comparison and check purposes
function combineTheGivenNumber2(numArray, num) {
const strings = new Map();
for (const num of numArray) {
const str = String(num);
strings.set(str, 1 + (strings.get(str) ?? 0));
}
const whole = String(num);
let pairCounts = 0;
for (const [prefix, pCount] of strings) {
if (!whole.startsWith(prefix))
continue;
const suffix = whole.slice(prefix.length);
if (strings.has(suffix)) {
let sCount = strings.get(suffix);
if (suffix == prefix) sCount--; // no self-concatenation
pairCounts += pCount*sCount;
}
}
return pairCounts;
}
var myArray = []
for (let i =0; i!= 10000000; i++) {
myArray.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000000))
}
var a = new Date()
t1 = a.getTime()
console.log('Test 1: ', combineTheGivenNumber(myArray,15285656));
var b = new Date()
t2 = b.getTime()
console.log('Test 2: ', combineTheGivenNumber2(myArray,15285656));
var c = new Date()
t3 = c.getTime()
console.log('Test1 time: ', t2 - t1)
console.log('test2 time: ', t3 - t2)
Small update
As long as you are willing to take a performance hit with the setup and settle for the ~2 times performance, using a simple "hashing" table can help.(Hashing tables are nice and tidy, this is a simple modulo lookup table. The principle is similar though.)
Technically this isn't linear, practicaly it is enough for the most cases - unless you are extremely unlucky and all your numbers fall in the same bucket.
function combineTheGivenNumber(numArray, num) {
count = 0
let size = 1000000
numTable = new Array(size)
for (var i=0; i!=numArray.length; i++) {
let idx = numArray[i] % size
if (numTable[idx] == undefined) {
numTable[idx] = [numArray[i]]
} else {
numTable[idx].push(numArray[i])
}
}
for (var i=0; i!=numArray.length; i++) {
let portion = num - numArray[i]
let removedPart = Math.pow(10, log10floored(numArray[i]))
if (portion % (removedPart * 10) == 0) {
if (numTable[portion / (removedPart * 10) % size] != undefined) {
let a = numTable[portion / (removedPart * 10) % size]
for (var j=0; j!=a.length; j++) {
if (j != i && portion / (removedPart * 10) == a[j] ) {
count += 1
}
}
}
}
}
return count
}

Here's a simplified, and partially optimised approach with 2 loops:
// let's optimise 'combineTheGivenNumber', where
// a=array of numbers AND n=number to match
const ctgn = (a, n) => {
// convert our given number to a string using `toString` for clarity
// this isn't entirely necessary but means we can use strict equality later
const ns = n.toString();
// reduce is an efficient mechanism to return a value based on an array, giving us
// _=[accumulator], na=[array number] and i=[index]
return a.reduce((_, na, i) => {
// convert our 'array number' to an 'array number string' for later concatenation
const nas = na.toString();
// iterate back over our array of numbers ... we're using an optimised/reverse loop
for (let ii = a.length - 1; ii >= 0; ii--) {
// skip the current array number
if (i === ii) continue;
// string + number === string, which lets us strictly compare our 'number to match'
// if there's a match we increment the accumulator
if (a[ii] + nas === ns) ++_;
}
// we're done
return _;
}, 0);
}

Fibonacci Sequence - Find the number of digits - JavaScript

So, I have successfully written the Fibonacci sequence to create an array with the sequence of numbers, but I need to know the length (how many digits) the 500th number has.
I've tried the below code, but its finding the length of the scientific notation (22 digits), not the proper 105 it should be returning.
Any ideas how to convert a scientific notation number into an actual integer?
var fiblength = function fiblength(nth) {
var temparr = [0,1];
for(var i = 2; i<=nth; i++){
var prev = temparr[temparr.length-2],
cur = temparr[temparr.length-1],
next = prev + cur;
temparr.push(next);
}
var final = temparr[temparr.length-1].toString().length;
console.log(temparr[temparr.length-1]);
return final;
};
a = fiblength(500);
console.log(a);

Why not use the simple procedure of dividing the number by 10 until the number is less than 1.
Something as simple as this should work (a recursive def obv works as well)
function getDigits(n) {
var digits = 0;
while(n >= 1) {
n/=10;
digits += 1;
}
return digits;
}
getDigits(200);//3
getDigits(3.2 * 10e20);//=>22

Here's a solution in constant time:
function fiblength(n) {
return Math.floor((n>1)?n*.2089+.65051:1);
}
Let's explain how I arrived to it.
All previous solutions will probably not work for N>300 unless you have a BigNumber library in place. Also they're pretty inneficient.
There is a formula to get any Fibonacci number, which uses PHI (golden ratio number), it's very simple:
F(n) = ABS((PHI^n)/sqrt(5))
Where PHI=1.61803399 (golden ratio, found all over the fibonacci sequence)
If you want to know how many digits a number has, you calculate the log base 10 and add 1 to that. Let's call that function D(n) = log10(n) + 1
So what you want fiblength to be is in just the following function
fiblength(n) = D(F(n)) // number of digits of a fibonacci number...
Let's work it out, so you see what the one liner code will be like once you use math.
Substitute F(n)
fiblength(n) = D(ABS((PHI^n)/sqrt(5)))
Now apply D(n) on that:
fiblength(n) = log10(ABS((PHI^n)/sqrt(5))) + 1
So, since log(a/b) = log(a) - log(b)
fiblength(n) = log10(ABS((PHI^n))) - log10(sqrt(5))) + 1
and since log(a^n) = n * log(a)
fiblength(n) = n*log10(PHI) - log10(sqrt(5))) + 1
Then we evaluate those logarithms since they're all on constants
and add the special cases of n=0 and n=1 to return 1
function fiblength(n) {
return Math.floor((n>1)?n*.2089+.65051:1);
}
Enjoy :)
fiblength(500) => 105 //no iterations necessary.

Most of the javascript implementations, internally use 64 bit numbers. So, if the number we are trying to represent is very big, it uses scientific notation to represent those numbers. So, there is no pure "javascript numbers" based solution for this. You may have to look for other BigNum libraries.
As far as your code is concerned, you want only the 500th number, so you don't have to store the entire array of numbers in memory, just previous and current numbers are enough.
function fiblength(nth) {
var previous = 0, current = 1, temp;
for(var i = 2; i<=nth; i++){
temp = current;
current = previous + current;
previous = temp;
}
return current;
};

My Final Solution
function fiblength(nth) {
var a = 0, b = 1, c;
for(var i=2;i<=nth;i++){
c=b;
b=a+b;
a=c;
}
return Math.floor(Math.log(b)/Math.log(10))+1;
}
console.log(fiblength(500));
Thanks for the help!!!

The problem is because the resulting number was converted into a string before any meaningful calculations could be made. Here's how it could have been solved in the original code:
var fiblength = function fiblength(nth) {
var temparr = [0,1];
for(var i = 2; i<=nth; i++){
var prev = temparr[temparr.length-2],
cur = temparr[temparr.length-1],
next = prev + cur;
temparr.push(next);
}
var x = temparr[temparr.length-1];
console.log(x);
var length = 1;
while (x > 1) {
length = length + 1;
x = x/10;
}
return length;
};
console.log ( fiblength(500) );

Truncate (not round off) decimal numbers in javascript

I am trying to truncate decimal numbers to decimal places. Something like this:
5.467 -> 5.46
985.943 -> 985.94
toFixed(2) does just about the right thing but it rounds off the value. I don't need the value rounded off. Hope this is possible in javascript.

Dogbert's answer is good, but if your code might have to deal with negative numbers, Math.floor by itself may give unexpected results.
E.g. Math.floor(4.3) = 4, but Math.floor(-4.3) = -5
Use a helper function like this one instead to get consistent results:
truncateDecimals = function (number) {
return Math[number < 0 ? 'ceil' : 'floor'](number);
};
// Applied to Dogbert's answer:
var a = 5.467;
var truncated = truncateDecimals(a * 100) / 100; // = 5.46
Here's a more convenient version of this function:
truncateDecimals = function (number, digits) {
var multiplier = Math.pow(10, digits),
adjustedNum = number * multiplier,
truncatedNum = Math[adjustedNum < 0 ? 'ceil' : 'floor'](adjustedNum);
return truncatedNum / multiplier;
};
// Usage:
var a = 5.467;
var truncated = truncateDecimals(a, 2); // = 5.46
// Negative digits:
var b = 4235.24;
var truncated = truncateDecimals(b, -2); // = 4200
If that isn't desired behaviour, insert a call to Math.abs on the first line:
var multiplier = Math.pow(10, Math.abs(digits)),
EDIT: shendz correctly points out that using this solution with a = 17.56 will incorrectly produce 17.55. For more about why this happens, read What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic. Unfortunately, writing a solution that eliminates all sources of floating-point error is pretty tricky with javascript. In another language you'd use integers or maybe a Decimal type, but with javascript...
This solution should be 100% accurate, but it will also be slower:
function truncateDecimals (num, digits) {
var numS = num.toString(),
decPos = numS.indexOf('.'),
substrLength = decPos == -1 ? numS.length : 1 + decPos + digits,
trimmedResult = numS.substr(0, substrLength),
finalResult = isNaN(trimmedResult) ? 0 : trimmedResult;
return parseFloat(finalResult);
}
For those who need speed but also want to avoid floating-point errors, try something like BigDecimal.js. You can find other javascript BigDecimal libraries in this SO question: "Is there a good Javascript BigDecimal library?" and here's a good blog post about math libraries for Javascript

upd:
So, after all it turned out, rounding bugs will always haunt you, no matter how hard you try to compensate them. Hence the problem should be attacked by representing numbers exactly in decimal notation.
Number.prototype.toFixedDown = function(digits) {
var re = new RegExp("(\\d+\\.\\d{" + digits + "})(\\d)"),
m = this.toString().match(re);
return m ? parseFloat(m[1]) : this.valueOf();
};
[ 5.467.toFixedDown(2),
985.943.toFixedDown(2),
17.56.toFixedDown(2),
(0).toFixedDown(1),
1.11.toFixedDown(1) + 22];
// [5.46, 985.94, 17.56, 0, 23.1]
Old error-prone solution based on compilation of others':
Number.prototype.toFixedDown = function(digits) {
var n = this - Math.pow(10, -digits)/2;
n += n / Math.pow(2, 53); // added 1360765523: 17.56.toFixedDown(2) === "17.56"
return n.toFixed(digits);
}

var a = 5.467;
var truncated = Math.floor(a * 100) / 100; // = 5.46

You can fix the rounding by subtracting 0.5 for toFixed, e.g.
(f - 0.005).toFixed(2)

Nice one-line solution:
function truncate (num, places) {
return Math.trunc(num * Math.pow(10, places)) / Math.pow(10, places);
}
Then call it with:
truncate(3.5636232, 2); // returns 3.56
truncate(5.4332312, 3); // returns 5.433
truncate(25.463214, 4); // returns 25.4632

Consider taking advantage of the double tilde: ~~.
Take in the number. Multiply by significant digits after the decimal so that you can truncate to zero places with ~~. Divide that multiplier back out. Profit.
function truncator(numToTruncate, intDecimalPlaces) {
var numPower = Math.pow(10, intDecimalPlaces); // "numPowerConverter" might be better
return ~~(numToTruncate * numPower)/numPower;
}
I'm trying to resist wrapping the ~~ call in parens; order of operations should make that work correctly, I believe.
alert(truncator(5.1231231, 1)); // is 5.1
alert(truncator(-5.73, 1)); // is -5.7
alert(truncator(-5.73, 0)); // is -5
JSFiddle link.
EDIT: Looking back over, I've unintentionally also handled cases to round off left of the decimal as well.
alert(truncator(4343.123, -2)); // gives 4300.
The logic's a little wacky looking for that usage, and may benefit from a quick refactor. But it still works. Better lucky than good.

I thought I'd throw in an answer using | since it is simple and works well.
truncate = function(number, places) {
var shift = Math.pow(10, places);
return ((number * shift) | 0) / shift;
};

Truncate using bitwise operators:
~~0.5 === 0
~~(-0.5) === 0
~~14.32794823 === 14
~~(-439.93) === -439

#Dogbert's answer can be improved with Math.trunc, which truncates instead of rounding.
There is a difference between rounding and truncating. Truncating is
clearly the behaviour this question is seeking. If I call
truncate(-3.14) and receive -4 back, I would definitely call that
undesirable. – #NickKnowlson
var a = 5.467;
var truncated = Math.trunc(a * 100) / 100; // = 5.46
var a = -5.467;
var truncated = Math.trunc(a * 100) / 100; // = -5.46

I wrote an answer using a shorter method. Here is what I came up with
function truncate(value, precision) {
var step = Math.pow(10, precision || 0);
var temp = Math.trunc(step * value);
return temp / step;
}
The method can be used like so
truncate(132456.25456789, 5)); // Output: 132456.25456
truncate(132456.25456789, 3)); // Output: 132456.254
truncate(132456.25456789, 1)); // Output: 132456.2
truncate(132456.25456789)); // Output: 132456
Or, if you want a shorter syntax, here you go
function truncate(v, p) {
var s = Math.pow(10, p || 0);
return Math.trunc(s * v) / s;
}

I think this function could be a simple solution:
function trunc(decimal,n=2){
let x = decimal + ''; // string
return x.lastIndexOf('.')>=0?parseFloat(x.substr(0,x.lastIndexOf('.')+(n+1))):decimal; // You can use indexOf() instead of lastIndexOf()
}
console.log(trunc(-241.31234,2));
console.log(trunc(241.312,5));
console.log(trunc(-241.233));
console.log(trunc(241.2,0));
console.log(trunc(241));

Number.prototype.trim = function(decimals) {
var s = this.toString();
var d = s.split(".");
d[1] = d[1].substring(0, decimals);
return parseFloat(d.join("."));
}
console.log((5.676).trim(2)); //logs 5.67

I'm a bit confused as to why there are so many different answers to such a fundamentally simple question; there are only two approaches which I saw which seemed to be worth looking at. I did a quick benchmark to see the speed difference using https://jsbench.me/.
This is the solution which is currently (9/26/2020) flagged as the answer:
function truncate(n, digits) {
var re = new RegExp("(\\d+\\.\\d{" + digits + "})(\\d)"),
m = n.toString().match(re);
return m ? parseFloat(m[1]) : n.valueOf();
};
[ truncate(5.467,2),
truncate(985.943,2),
truncate(17.56,2),
truncate(0, 1),
truncate(1.11, 1) + 22];
However, this is doing string and regex stuff, which is usually not very efficient, and there is a Math.trunc function which does exactly what the OP wants just with no decimals. Therefore, you can easily use that plus a little extra arithmetic to get the same thing.
Here is another solution I found on this thread, which is the one I would use:
function truncate(n, digits) {
var step = Math.pow(10, digits || 0);
var temp = Math.trunc(step * n);
return temp / step;
}
[ truncate(5.467,2),
truncate(985.943,2),
truncate(17.56,2),
truncate(0, 1),
truncate(1.11, 1) + 22];
The first method is "99.92% slower" than the second, so the second is definitely the one I would recommend using.
Okay, back to finding other ways to avoid work...

I found a problem: considering the next situation: 2.1 or 1.2 or -6.4
What if you want always 3 decimals or two or wharever, so, you have to complete the leading zeros to the right
// 3 decimals numbers
0.5 => 0.500
// 6 decimals
0.1 => 0.10000
// 4 decimales
-2.1 => -2.1000
// truncate to 3 decimals
3.11568 => 3.115
This is the fixed function of Nick Knowlson
function truncateDecimals (num, digits)
{
var numS = num.toString();
var decPos = numS.indexOf('.');
var substrLength = decPos == -1 ? numS.length : 1 + decPos + digits;
var trimmedResult = numS.substr(0, substrLength);
var finalResult = isNaN(trimmedResult) ? 0 : trimmedResult;
// adds leading zeros to the right
if (decPos != -1){
var s = trimmedResult+"";
decPos = s.indexOf('.');
var decLength = s.length - decPos;
while (decLength <= digits){
s = s + "0";
decPos = s.indexOf('.');
decLength = s.length - decPos;
substrLength = decPos == -1 ? s.length : 1 + decPos + digits;
};
finalResult = s;
}
return finalResult;
};
https://jsfiddle.net/huttn155/7/

function toFixed(number, digits) {
var reg_ex = new RegExp("(\\d+\\.\\d{" + digits + "})(\\d)")
var array = number.toString().match(reg_ex);
return array ? parseFloat(array[1]) : number.valueOf()
}
var test = 10.123456789
var __fixed = toFixed(test, 6)
console.log(__fixed)
// => 10.123456

The answer by #kirilloid seems to be the correct answer, however, the main code needs to be updated. His solution doesn't take care of negative numbers (which someone did mention in the comment section but has not been updated in the main code).
Updating that to a complete final tested solution:
Number.prototype.toFixedDown = function(digits) {
var re = new RegExp("([-]*\\d+\\.\\d{" + digits + "})(\\d)"),
m = this.toString().match(re);
return m ? parseFloat(m[1]) : this.valueOf();
};
Sample Usage:
var x = 3.1415629;
Logger.log(x.toFixedDown(2)); //or use whatever you use to log
Fiddle: JS Number Round down
PS: Not enough repo to comment on that solution.

Here my take on the subject:
convert.truncate = function(value, decimals) {
decimals = (decimals === undefined ? 0 : decimals);
return parseFloat((value-(0.5/Math.pow(10, decimals))).toFixed(decimals),10);
};
It's just a slightly more elaborate version of
(f - 0.005).toFixed(2)

Here is simple but working function to truncate number upto 2 decimal places.
function truncateNumber(num) {
var num1 = "";
var num2 = "";
var num1 = num.split('.')[0];
num2 = num.split('.')[1];
var decimalNum = num2.substring(0, 2);
var strNum = num1 +"."+ decimalNum;
var finalNum = parseFloat(strNum);
return finalNum;
}

The resulting type remains a number...
/* Return the truncation of n wrt base */
var trunc = function(n, base) {
n = (n / base) | 0;
return base * n;
};
var t = trunc(5.467, 0.01);

Lodash has a few Math utility methods that can round, floor, and ceil a number to a given decimal precision. This leaves off trailing zeroes.
They take an interesting approach, using the exponent of a number. Apparently this avoids rounding issues.
(Note: func is Math.round or ceil or floor in the code below)
// Shift with exponential notation to avoid floating-point issues.
var pair = (toString(number) + 'e').split('e'),
value = func(pair[0] + 'e' + (+pair[1] + precision));
pair = (toString(value) + 'e').split('e');
return +(pair[0] + 'e' + (+pair[1] - precision));
Link to the source code

const TO_FIXED_MAX = 100;
function truncate(number, decimalsPrecison) {
// make it a string with precision 1e-100
number = number.toFixed(TO_FIXED_MAX);
// chop off uneccessary digits
const dotIndex = number.indexOf('.');
number = number.substring(0, dotIndex + decimalsPrecison + 1);
// back to a number data type (app specific)
return Number.parseFloat(number);
}
// example
truncate(0.00000001999, 8);
0.00000001
works with:
negative numbers
very small numbers (Number.EPSILON precision)

The one that is mark as the solution is the better solution I been found until today, but has a serious problem with 0 (for example, 0.toFixedDown(2) gives -0.01). So I suggest to use this:
Number.prototype.toFixedDown = function(digits) {
if(this == 0) {
return 0;
}
var n = this - Math.pow(10, -digits)/2;
n += n / Math.pow(2, 53); // added 1360765523: 17.56.toFixedDown(2) === "17.56"
return n.toFixed(digits);
}

Here is what I use:
var t = 1;
for (var i = 0; i < decimalPrecision; i++)
t = t * 10;
var f = parseFloat(value);
return (Math.floor(f * t)) / t;

You can work with strings.
It Checks if '.' exists, and then removes part of string.
truncate (7.88, 1) --> 7.8
truncate (7.889, 2) --> 7.89
truncate (-7.88, 1 ) --> -7.88
function truncate(number, decimals) {
const tmp = number + '';
if (tmp.indexOf('.') > -1) {
return +tmp.substr(0 , tmp.indexOf('.') + decimals+1 );
} else {
return +number
}
}

function trunc(num, dec) {
const pow = 10 ** dec
return Math.trunc(num * pow) / pow
}
// ex.
trunc(4.9634, 1) // 4.9
trunc(4.9634, 2) // 4.96
trunc(-4.9634, 1) // -4.9

You can use toFixed(2) to convert your float to a string with 2 decimal points. Then you can wrap that in floatParse() to convert that string back to a float to make it usable for calculations or db storage.
const truncatedNumber = floatParse(num.toFixed(2))
I am not sure of the potential drawbacks of this answer like increased processing time but I tested edge cases from other comments like .29 which returns .29 (not .28 like other solutions). It also handles negative numbers.

just to point out a simple solution that worked for me
convert it to string and then regex it...
var number = 123.45678;
var number_s = '' + number;
var number_truncated_s = number_s.match(/\d*\.\d{4}/)[0]
var number_truncated = parseFloat(number_truncated_s)
It can be abbreviated to
var number_truncated = parseFloat(('' + 123.4568908).match(/\d*\.\d{4}/)[0])

Here is an ES6 code which does what you want
const truncateTo = (unRouned, nrOfDecimals = 2) => {
const parts = String(unRouned).split(".");
if (parts.length !== 2) {
// without any decimal part
return unRouned;
}
const newDecimals = parts[1].slice(0, nrOfDecimals),
newString = `${parts[0]}.${newDecimals}`;
return Number(newString);
};
// your examples
console.log(truncateTo(5.467)); // ---> 5.46
console.log(truncateTo(985.943)); // ---> 985.94
// other examples
console.log(truncateTo(5)); // ---> 5
console.log(truncateTo(-5)); // ---> -5
console.log(truncateTo(-985.943)); // ---> -985.94

Suppose you want to truncate number x till n digits.
Math.trunc(x * pow(10,n))/pow(10,n);

Number.prototype.truncate = function(places) {
var shift = Math.pow(10, places);
return Math.trunc(this * shift) / shift;
};

JavaScript summing large integers

In JavaScript I would like to create the binary hash of a large boolean array (54 elements) with the following method:
function bhash(arr) {
for (var i = 0, L = arr.length, sum = 0; i < L; sum += Math.pow(2,i)*arr[i++]);
return sum;
}
In short: it creates the smallest integer to store an array of booleans in. Now my problem is that javascript apparently uses floats as default. The maximum number I have to create is 2^54-1 but once javascript reaches 2^53 it starts doing weird things:
9007199254740992+1 = 9007199254740994
Is there any way of using integers instead of floats in javascript? Or large integer summations?

JavaScript uses floating point internally.
What is JavaScript's highest integer value that a number can go to without losing precision?
In other words you can't use more than 53 bits. In some implementations you may be limited to 31.
Try storing the bits in more than one variable, use a string, or get a bignum library, or if you only need to deal with integers, a biginteger library.

BigInt is being added as a native feature of JavaScript.
typeof 123;
// → 'number'
typeof 123n;
// → 'bigint'
Example:
const max = BigInt(Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER);
const two = 2n;
const result = max + two;
console.log(result);
// → '9007199254740993'

javascript now has experimental support for BigInt.
At the time of writing only chrome supports this.
caniuse has no entry yet.
BigInt can be either used with a constructor, e.g. BigInt(20) or by appending n, e.g. 20n
Example:
const max = Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER;
console.log('javascript Number limit reached', max + 1 === max + 2) // true;
console.log('javascript BigInt limit reached', BigInt(max) + 1n === BigInt(max) + 2n); // false

No. Javascript only has one numeric type. You've to code yourself or use a large integer library (and you cannot even overload arithmetic operators).
Update
This was true in 2010... now (2019) a BigInt library is being standardized and will most probably soon arrive natively in Javascript and it will be the second numeric type present (there are typed arrays, but - at least formally - values extracted from them are still double-precision floating point numbers).

Another implementation of large integer arithmetic (also using BigInt.js) is available at www.javascripter.net/math/calculators/100digitbigintcalculator.htm. Supports the operations + - * / as well as remainder, GCD, LCM, factorial, primality test, next prime, previous prime.

So while attempting one of the leetcode problem I have written a function which takes two numbers in form of string and returns the sum of those numbers in form of string.
(This doesn't work with negative numbers though we can modify this function to cover that)
var addTwoStr = function (s1, s2) {
s1 = s1.split("").reverse().join("")
s2 = s2.split("").reverse().join("")
var carry = 0, rS = '', x = null
if (s1.length > s2.length) {
for (let i = 0; i < s1.length; i++) {
let s = s1[i]
if (i < s2.length) {
x = Number(s) + Number(s2[i]) + carry
rS += String((x % 10))
carry = parseInt(x/10)
} else {
if (carry) {
x = Number(s) + carry
rS += String((x % 10))
carry = parseInt(x/10)
} else {
rS += s
}
}
}
} else {
for (let i = 0; i < s2.length; i++) {
let s = s2[i]
if (i < s1.length) {
x = Number(s) + Number(s1[i]) + carry
rS += String((x % 10))
carry = parseInt(x/10)
} else {
if (carry) {
x = Number(s) + carry
rS += String((x % 10))
carry = parseInt(x/10)
} else {
rS += s
}
}
}
}
if (carry) {
rS += String(carry)
}
return rS.split("").reverse().join("")
}
Example: addTwoStr('120354566', '321442535')
Output: "441797101"

There are various BigInteger Javascript libraries that you can find through googling. e.g. http://www.leemon.com/crypto/BigInt.html

Here's (yet another) wrapper around Leemon Baird's BigInt.js
It is used in this online demo of a big integer calculator in JavaScript which implements the usual four operations + - * /, the modulus (%), and four builtin functions : the square root (sqrt), the power (pow), the recursive factorial (fact) and a memoizing Fibonacci (fibo).

You're probably running into a byte length limit on your system. I'd take the array of booleans, convert it to an array of binary digits ([true, false, true] => [1,0,1]), then join this array into a string "101", then use parseInt('101',2), and you'll have your answer.

/** --if you want to show a big int as your wish use install and require this module
* By using 'big-integer' module is easier to use and handling the big int numbers than regular javascript
* https://www.npmjs.com/package/big-integer
*/
let bigInt = require('big-integer');
//variable: get_bigInt
let get_bigInt = bigInt("999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999");
let arr = [1, 100000, 21, 30, 4, BigInt(999999999999), get_bigInt.value];
console.log(arr[6]); // Output: 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999n
//Calculation
console.log(arr[6] + 1n); // +1
console.log(arr[6] + 100n); // +100
console.log(arr[6] - 1n); // -1
console.log(arr[6] - 10245n); // -1000n
console.log((arr[6] * 10000n) + 145n - 435n);

How can I pad a value with leading zeros?

What is the recommended way to zerofill a value in JavaScript? I imagine I could build a custom function to pad zeros on to a typecasted value, but I'm wondering if there is a more direct way to do this?
Note: By "zerofilled" I mean it in the database sense of the word (where a 6-digit zerofilled representation of the number 5 would be "000005").

I can't believe all the complex answers on here... Just use this:
var zerofilled = ('0000'+n).slice(-4);
let n = 1
var zerofilled = ('0000'+n).slice(-4);
console.log(zerofilled)

Simple way. You could add string multiplication for the pad and turn it into a function.
var pad = "000000";
var n = '5';
var result = (pad+n).slice(-pad.length);
As a function,
function paddy(num, padlen, padchar) {
var pad_char = typeof padchar !== 'undefined' ? padchar : '0';
var pad = new Array(1 + padlen).join(pad_char);
return (pad + num).slice(-pad.length);
}
var fu = paddy(14, 5); // 00014
var bar = paddy(2, 4, '#'); // ###2

Since ECMAScript 2017 we have padStart:
const padded = (.1 + "").padStart(6, "0");
console.log(`-${padded}`);
Before ECMAScript 2017
With toLocaleString:
var n=-0.1;
var res = n.toLocaleString('en', {minimumIntegerDigits:4,minimumFractionDigits:2,useGrouping:false});
console.log(res);

I actually had to come up with something like this recently.
I figured there had to be a way to do it without using loops.
This is what I came up with.
function zeroPad(num, numZeros) {
var n = Math.abs(num);
var zeros = Math.max(0, numZeros - Math.floor(n).toString().length );
var zeroString = Math.pow(10,zeros).toString().substr(1);
if( num < 0 ) {
zeroString = '-' + zeroString;
}
return zeroString+n;
}
Then just use it providing a number to zero pad:
> zeroPad(50,4);
"0050"
If the number is larger than the padding, the number will expand beyond the padding:
> zeroPad(51234, 3);
"51234"
Decimals are fine too!
> zeroPad(51.1234, 4);
"0051.1234"
If you don't mind polluting the global namespace you can add it to Number directly:
Number.prototype.leftZeroPad = function(numZeros) {
var n = Math.abs(this);
var zeros = Math.max(0, numZeros - Math.floor(n).toString().length );
var zeroString = Math.pow(10,zeros).toString().substr(1);
if( this < 0 ) {
zeroString = '-' + zeroString;
}
return zeroString+n;
}
And if you'd rather have decimals take up space in the padding:
Number.prototype.leftZeroPad = function(numZeros) {
var n = Math.abs(this);
var zeros = Math.max(0, numZeros - n.toString().length );
var zeroString = Math.pow(10,zeros).toString().substr(1);
if( this < 0 ) {
zeroString = '-' + zeroString;
}
return zeroString+n;
}
Cheers!
XDR came up with a logarithmic variation that seems to perform better.
WARNING: This function fails if num equals zero (e.g. zeropad(0, 2))
function zeroPad (num, numZeros) {
var an = Math.abs (num);
var digitCount = 1 + Math.floor (Math.log (an) / Math.LN10);
if (digitCount >= numZeros) {
return num;
}
var zeroString = Math.pow (10, numZeros - digitCount).toString ().substr (1);
return num < 0 ? '-' + zeroString + an : zeroString + an;
}
Speaking of performance, tomsmeding compared the top 3 answers (4 with the log variation). Guess which one majorly outperformed the other two? :)

Modern browsers now support padStart, you can simply now do:
string.padStart(maxLength, "0");
Example:
string = "14";
maxLength = 5; // maxLength is the max string length, not max # of fills
res = string.padStart(maxLength, "0");
console.log(res); // prints "00014"
number = 14;
maxLength = 5; // maxLength is the max string length, not max # of fills
res = number.toString().padStart(maxLength, "0");
console.log(res); // prints "00014"

Here's what I used to pad a number up to 7 characters.
("0000000" + number).slice(-7)
This approach will probably suffice for most people.
Edit: If you want to make it more generic you can do this:
("0".repeat(padding) + number).slice(-padding)
Edit 2: Note that since ES2017 you can use String.prototype.padStart:
number.toString().padStart(padding, "0")

Unfortunately, there are a lot of needless complicated suggestions for this problem, typically involving writing your own function to do math or string manipulation or calling a third-party utility. However, there is a standard way of doing this in the base JavaScript library with just one line of code. It might be worth wrapping this one line of code in a function to avoid having to specify parameters that you never want to change like the local name or style.
var amount = 5;
var text = amount.toLocaleString('en-US',
{
style: 'decimal',
minimumIntegerDigits: 3,
useGrouping: false
});
This will produce the value of "005" for text. You can also use the toLocaleString function of Number to pad zeros to the right side of the decimal point.
var amount = 5;
var text = amount.toLocaleString('en-US',
{
style: 'decimal',
minimumFractionDigits: 2,
useGrouping: false
});
This will produce the value of "5.00" for text. Change useGrouping to true to use comma separators for thousands.
Note that using toLocaleString() with locales and options arguments is standardized separately in ECMA-402, not in ECMAScript. As of today, some browsers only implement basic support, i.e. toLocaleString() may ignore any arguments.
Complete Example

If the fill number is known in advance not to exceed a certain value, there's another way to do this with no loops:
var fillZeroes = "00000000000000000000"; // max number of zero fill ever asked for in global
function zeroFill(number, width) {
// make sure it's a string
var input = number + "";
var prefix = "";
if (input.charAt(0) === '-') {
prefix = "-";
input = input.slice(1);
--width;
}
var fillAmt = Math.max(width - input.length, 0);
return prefix + fillZeroes.slice(0, fillAmt) + input;
}
Test cases here: http://jsfiddle.net/jfriend00/N87mZ/

The quick and dirty way:
y = (new Array(count + 1 - x.toString().length)).join('0') + x;
For x = 5 and count = 6 you'll have y = "000005"

Here's a quick function I came up with to do the job. If anyone has a simpler approach, feel free to share!
function zerofill(number, length) {
// Setup
var result = number.toString();
var pad = length - result.length;
while(pad > 0) {
result = '0' + result;
pad--;
}
return result;
}

ECMAScript 2017:
use padStart or padEnd
'abc'.padStart(10); // " abc"
'abc'.padStart(10, "foo"); // "foofoofabc"
'abc'.padStart(6,"123465"); // "123abc"
More info:
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-string-pad-start-end
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/String/padStart

I often use this construct for doing ad-hoc padding of some value n, known to be a positive, decimal:
(offset + n + '').substr(1);
Where offset is 10^^digits.
E.g., padding to 5 digits, where n = 123:
(1e5 + 123 + '').substr(1); // => 00123
The hexadecimal version of this is slightly more verbose:
(0x100000 + 0x123).toString(16).substr(1); // => 00123
Note 1: I like #profitehlolz's solution as well, which is the string version of this, using slice()'s nifty negative-index feature.

I really don't know why, but no one did it in the most obvious way. Here it's my implementation.
Function:
/** Pad a number with 0 on the left */
function zeroPad(number, digits) {
var num = number+"";
while(num.length < digits){
num='0'+num;
}
return num;
}
Prototype:
Number.prototype.zeroPad=function(digits){
var num=this+"";
while(num.length < digits){
num='0'+num;
}
return(num);
};
Very straightforward, I can't see any way how this can be any simpler. For some reason I've seem many times here on SO, people just try to avoid 'for' and 'while' loops at any cost. Using regex will probably cost way more cycles for such a trivial 8 digit padding.

In all modern browsers you can use
numberStr.padStart(numberLength, "0");
function zeroFill(num, numLength) {
var numberStr = num.toString();
return numberStr.padStart(numLength, "0");
}
var numbers = [0, 1, 12, 123, 1234, 12345];
numbers.forEach(
function(num) {
var numString = num.toString();
var paddedNum = zeroFill(numString, 5);
console.log(paddedNum);
}
);
Here is the MDN reference https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/String/padStart

I use this snippet to get a five-digits representation:
(value+100000).toString().slice(-5) // "00123" with value=123

The power of Math!
x = integer to pad
y = number of zeroes to pad
function zeroPad(x, y)
{
y = Math.max(y-1,0);
var n = (x / Math.pow(10,y)).toFixed(y);
return n.replace('.','');
}

This is the ES6 solution.
function pad(num, len) {
return '0'.repeat(len - num.toString().length) + num;
}
alert(pad(1234,6));

Not that this question needs more answers, but I thought I would add the simple lodash version of this.
_.padLeft(number, 6, '0')

I didn't see anyone point out the fact that when you use String.prototype.substr() with a negative number it counts from the right.
A one liner solution to the OP's question, a 6-digit zerofilled representation of the number 5, is:
console.log(("00000000" + 5).substr(-6));
Generalizing we'll get:
function pad(num, len) { return ("00000000" + num).substr(-len) };
console.log(pad(5, 6));
console.log(pad(45, 6));
console.log(pad(345, 6));
console.log(pad(2345, 6));
console.log(pad(12345, 6));

Don't reinvent the wheel; use underscore string:
jsFiddle
var numToPad = '5';
alert(_.str.pad(numToPad, 6, '0')); // Yields: '000005'

After a, long, long time of testing 15 different functions/methods found in this questions answers, I now know which is the best (the most versatile and quickest).
I took 15 functions/methods from the answers to this question and made a script to measure the time taken to execute 100 pads. Each pad would pad the number 9 with 2000 zeros. This may seem excessive, and it is, but it gives you a good idea about the scaling of the functions.
The code I used can be found here:
https://gist.github.com/NextToNothing/6325915
Feel free to modify and test the code yourself.
In order to get the most versatile method, you have to use a loop. This is because with very large numbers others are likely to fail, whereas, this will succeed.
So, which loop to use? Well, that would be a while loop. A for loop is still fast, but a while loop is just slightly quicker(a couple of ms) - and cleaner.
Answers like those by Wilco, Aleksandar Toplek or Vitim.us will do the job perfectly.
Personally, I tried a different approach. I tried to use a recursive function to pad the string/number. It worked out better than methods joining an array but, still, didn't work as quick as a for loop.
My function is:
function pad(str, max, padder) {
padder = typeof padder === "undefined" ? "0" : padder;
return str.toString().length < max ? pad(padder.toString() + str, max, padder) : str;
}
You can use my function with, or without, setting the padding variable. So like this:
pad(1, 3); // Returns '001'
// - Or -
pad(1, 3, "x"); // Returns 'xx1'
Personally, after my tests, I would use a method with a while loop, like Aleksandar Toplek or Vitim.us. However, I would modify it slightly so that you are able to set the padding string.
So, I would use this code:
function padLeft(str, len, pad) {
pad = typeof pad === "undefined" ? "0" : pad + "";
str = str + "";
while(str.length < len) {
str = pad + str;
}
return str;
}
// Usage
padLeft(1, 3); // Returns '001'
// - Or -
padLeft(1, 3, "x"); // Returns 'xx1'
You could also use it as a prototype function, by using this code:
Number.prototype.padLeft = function(len, pad) {
pad = typeof pad === "undefined" ? "0" : pad + "";
var str = this + "";
while(str.length < len) {
str = pad + str;
}
return str;
}
// Usage
var num = 1;
num.padLeft(3); // Returns '001'
// - Or -
num.padLeft(3, "x"); // Returns 'xx1'

First parameter is any real number, second parameter is a positive integer specifying the minimum number of digits to the left of the decimal point and third parameter is an optional positive integer specifying the number if digits to the right of the decimal point.
function zPad(n, l, r){
return(a=String(n).match(/(^-?)(\d*)\.?(\d*)/))?a[1]+(Array(l).join(0)+a[2]).slice(-Math.max(l,a[2].length))+('undefined'!==typeof r?(0<r?'.':'')+(a[3]+Array(r+1).join(0)).slice(0,r):a[3]?'.'+a[3]:''):0
}
so
zPad(6, 2) === '06'
zPad(-6, 2) === '-06'
zPad(600.2, 2) === '600.2'
zPad(-600, 2) === '-600'
zPad(6.2, 3) === '006.2'
zPad(-6.2, 3) === '-006.2'
zPad(6.2, 3, 0) === '006'
zPad(6, 2, 3) === '06.000'
zPad(600.2, 2, 3) === '600.200'
zPad(-600.1499, 2, 3) === '-600.149'

The latest way to do this is much simpler:
var number = 2
number.toLocaleString(undefined, {minimumIntegerDigits:2})
output: "02"

Just another solution, but I think it's more legible.
function zeroFill(text, size)
{
while (text.length < size){
text = "0" + text;
}
return text;
}

This one is less native, but may be the fastest...
zeroPad = function (num, count) {
var pad = (num + '').length - count;
while(--pad > -1) {
num = '0' + num;
}
return num;
};

My solution
Number.prototype.PadLeft = function (length, digit) {
var str = '' + this;
while (str.length < length) {
str = (digit || '0') + str;
}
return str;
};
Usage
var a = 567.25;
a.PadLeft(10); // 0000567.25
var b = 567.25;
b.PadLeft(20, '2'); // 22222222222222567.25

With ES6+ JavaScript:
You can "zerofill a number" with something like the following function:
/**
* #param number The number
* #param minLength Minimal length for your string with leading zeroes
* #return Your formatted string
*/
function zerofill(nb, minLength) {
// Convert your number to string.
let nb2Str = nb.toString()
// Guess the number of zeroes you will have to write.
let nbZeroes = Math.max(0, minLength - nb2Str.length)
// Compute your result.
return `${ '0'.repeat(nbZeroes) }${ nb2Str }`
}
console.log(zerofill(5, 6)) // Displays "000005"
With ES2017+:
/**
* #param number The number
* #param minLength Minimal length for your string with leading zeroes
* #return Your formatted string
*/
const zerofill = (nb, minLength) => nb.toString().padStart(minLength, '0')
console.log(zerofill(5, 6)) // Displays "000005"

Use recursion:
function padZero(s, n) {
s = s.toString(); // In case someone passes a number
return s.length >= n ? s : padZero('0' + s, n);
}

Some monkeypatching also works
String.prototype.padLeft = function (n, c) {
if (isNaN(n))
return null;
c = c || "0";
return (new Array(n).join(c).substring(0, this.length-n)) + this;
};
var paddedValue = "123".padLeft(6); // returns "000123"
var otherPadded = "TEXT".padLeft(8, " "); // returns " TEXT"

function pad(toPad, padChar, length){
return (String(toPad).length < length)
? new Array(length - String(toPad).length + 1).join(padChar) + String(toPad)
: toPad;
}
pad(5, 0, 6) = 000005
pad('10', 0, 2) = 10 // don't pad if not necessary
pad('S', 'O', 2) = SO
...etc.
Cheers

Categories

Resources