Lets say I have a value of 3.4679 and want 3.46, how can I truncate to two decimal places that without rounding up?
I have tried the following but all three give me 3.47:
void Main()
{
Console.Write(Math.Round(3.4679, 2,MidpointRounding.ToEven));
Console.Write(Math.Round(3.4679, 2,MidpointRounding.AwayFromZero));
Console.Write(Math.Round(3.4679, 2));
}
This returns 3.46, but just seems dirty some how:
void Main()
{
Console.Write(Math.Round(3.46799999999 -.005 , 2));
}
It would be more useful to have a full function for real-world usage of truncating a decimal in C#. This could be converted to a Decimal extension method pretty easy if you wanted:
public decimal TruncateDecimal(decimal value, int precision)
{
decimal step = (decimal)Math.Pow(10, precision);
decimal tmp = Math.Truncate(step * value);
return tmp / step;
}
If you need VB.NET try this:
Function TruncateDecimal(value As Decimal, precision As Integer) As Decimal
Dim stepper As Decimal = Math.Pow(10, precision)
Dim tmp As Decimal = Math.Truncate(stepper * value)
Return tmp / stepper
End Function
Then use it like so:
decimal result = TruncateDecimal(0.275, 2);
or
Dim result As Decimal = TruncateDecimal(0.275, 2)
Universal and fast method (without Math.Pow() / multiplication) for System.Decimal:
decimal Truncate(decimal d, byte decimals)
{
decimal r = Math.Round(d, decimals);
if (d > 0 && r > d)
{
return r - new decimal(1, 0, 0, false, decimals);
}
else if (d < 0 && r < d)
{
return r + new decimal(1, 0, 0, false, decimals);
}
return r;
}
One issue with the other examples is they multiply the input value before dividing it. There is an edge case here that you can overflow decimal by multiplying first, an edge case, but something I have come across. It's safer to deal with the fractional part separately as follows:
public static decimal TruncateDecimal(this decimal value, int decimalPlaces)
{
decimal integralValue = Math.Truncate(value);
decimal fraction = value - integralValue;
decimal factor = (decimal)Math.Pow(10, decimalPlaces);
decimal truncatedFraction = Math.Truncate(fraction * factor) / factor;
decimal result = integralValue + truncatedFraction;
return result;
}
I will leave the solution for decimal numbers.
Some of the solutions for decimals here are prone to overflow (if we pass a very large decimal number and the method will try to multiply it).
Tim Lloyd's solution is protected from overflow but it's not too fast.
The following solution is about 2 times faster and doesn't have an overflow problem:
public static class DecimalExtensions
{
public static decimal TruncateEx(this decimal value, int decimalPlaces)
{
if (decimalPlaces < 0)
throw new ArgumentException("decimalPlaces must be greater than or equal to 0.");
var modifier = Convert.ToDecimal(0.5 / Math.Pow(10, decimalPlaces));
return Math.Round(value >= 0 ? value - modifier : value + modifier, decimalPlaces);
}
}
[Test]
public void FastDecimalTruncateTest()
{
Assert.AreEqual(-1.12m, -1.129m. TruncateEx(2));
Assert.AreEqual(-1.12m, -1.120m. TruncateEx(2));
Assert.AreEqual(-1.12m, -1.125m. TruncateEx(2));
Assert.AreEqual(-1.12m, -1.1255m.TruncateEx(2));
Assert.AreEqual(-1.12m, -1.1254m.TruncateEx(2));
Assert.AreEqual(0m, 0.0001m.TruncateEx(3));
Assert.AreEqual(0m, -0.0001m.TruncateEx(3));
Assert.AreEqual(0m, -0.0000m.TruncateEx(3));
Assert.AreEqual(0m, 0.0000m.TruncateEx(3));
Assert.AreEqual(1.1m, 1.12m. TruncateEx(1));
Assert.AreEqual(1.1m, 1.15m. TruncateEx(1));
Assert.AreEqual(1.1m, 1.19m. TruncateEx(1));
Assert.AreEqual(1.1m, 1.111m. TruncateEx(1));
Assert.AreEqual(1.1m, 1.199m. TruncateEx(1));
Assert.AreEqual(1.2m, 1.2m. TruncateEx(1));
Assert.AreEqual(0.1m, 0.14m. TruncateEx(1));
Assert.AreEqual(0, -0.05m. TruncateEx(1));
Assert.AreEqual(0, -0.049m. TruncateEx(1));
Assert.AreEqual(0, -0.051m. TruncateEx(1));
Assert.AreEqual(-0.1m, -0.14m. TruncateEx(1));
Assert.AreEqual(-0.1m, -0.15m. TruncateEx(1));
Assert.AreEqual(-0.1m, -0.16m. TruncateEx(1));
Assert.AreEqual(-0.1m, -0.19m. TruncateEx(1));
Assert.AreEqual(-0.1m, -0.199m. TruncateEx(1));
Assert.AreEqual(-0.1m, -0.101m. TruncateEx(1));
Assert.AreEqual(0m, -0.099m. TruncateEx(1));
Assert.AreEqual(0m, -0.001m. TruncateEx(1));
Assert.AreEqual(1m, 1.99m. TruncateEx(0));
Assert.AreEqual(1m, 1.01m. TruncateEx(0));
Assert.AreEqual(-1m, -1.99m. TruncateEx(0));
Assert.AreEqual(-1m, -1.01m. TruncateEx(0));
}
This is an old question, but many anwsers don't perform well or overflow for big numbers. I think D. Nesterov answer is the best one: robust, simple and fast. I just want to add my two cents.
I played around with decimals and also checked out the source code. From the public Decimal (int lo, int mid, int hi, bool isNegative, byte scale) constructor documentation.
The binary representation of a Decimal number consists of a 1-bit sign, a 96-bit integer number, and a scaling factor used to divide the integer number and specify what portion of it is a decimal fraction. The scaling factor is implicitly the number 10 raised to an exponent ranging from 0 to 28.
Knowing this, my first approach was to create another decimal whose scale corresponds to the decimals that I wanted to discard, then truncate it and finally create a decimal with the desired scale.
private const int ScaleMask = 0x00FF0000;
public static Decimal Truncate(decimal target, byte decimalPlaces)
{
var bits = Decimal.GetBits(target);
var scale = (byte)((bits[3] & (ScaleMask)) >> 16);
if (scale <= decimalPlaces)
return target;
var temporalDecimal = new Decimal(bits[0], bits[1], bits[2], target < 0, (byte)(scale - decimalPlaces));
temporalDecimal = Math.Truncate(temporalDecimal);
bits = Decimal.GetBits(temporalDecimal);
return new Decimal(bits[0], bits[1], bits[2], target < 0, decimalPlaces);
}
This method is not faster than D. Nesterov's and it is more complex, so I played around a little bit more. My guess is that having to create an auxiliar decimal and retrieving the bits twice is making it slower. On my second attempt, I manipulated the components returned by Decimal.GetBits(Decimal d) method myself. The idea is to divide the components by 10 as many times as needed and reduce the scale. The code is based (heavily) on the Decimal.InternalRoundFromZero(ref Decimal d, int decimalCount) method.
private const Int32 MaxInt32Scale = 9;
private const int ScaleMask = 0x00FF0000;
private const int SignMask = unchecked((int)0x80000000);
// Fast access for 10^n where n is 0-9
private static UInt32[] Powers10 = new UInt32[] {
1,
10,
100,
1000,
10000,
100000,
1000000,
10000000,
100000000,
1000000000
};
public static Decimal Truncate(decimal target, byte decimalPlaces)
{
var bits = Decimal.GetBits(target);
int lo = bits[0];
int mid = bits[1];
int hi = bits[2];
int flags = bits[3];
var scale = (byte)((flags & (ScaleMask)) >> 16);
int scaleDifference = scale - decimalPlaces;
if (scaleDifference <= 0)
return target;
// Divide the value by 10^scaleDifference
UInt32 lastDivisor;
do
{
Int32 diffChunk = (scaleDifference > MaxInt32Scale) ? MaxInt32Scale : scaleDifference;
lastDivisor = Powers10[diffChunk];
InternalDivRemUInt32(ref lo, ref mid, ref hi, lastDivisor);
scaleDifference -= diffChunk;
} while (scaleDifference > 0);
return new Decimal(lo, mid, hi, (flags & SignMask)!=0, decimalPlaces);
}
private static UInt32 InternalDivRemUInt32(ref int lo, ref int mid, ref int hi, UInt32 divisor)
{
UInt32 remainder = 0;
UInt64 n;
if (hi != 0)
{
n = ((UInt32)hi);
hi = (Int32)((UInt32)(n / divisor));
remainder = (UInt32)(n % divisor);
}
if (mid != 0 || remainder != 0)
{
n = ((UInt64)remainder << 32) | (UInt32)mid;
mid = (Int32)((UInt32)(n / divisor));
remainder = (UInt32)(n % divisor);
}
if (lo != 0 || remainder != 0)
{
n = ((UInt64)remainder << 32) | (UInt32)lo;
lo = (Int32)((UInt32)(n / divisor));
remainder = (UInt32)(n % divisor);
}
return remainder;
}
I haven't performed rigorous performance tests, but on a MacOS Sierra 10.12.6, 3,06 GHz Intel Core i3 processor and targeting .NetCore 2.1 this method seems to be much faster than D. Nesterov's (I won't give numbers since, as I have mentioned, my tests are not rigorous). It is up to whoever implements this to evaluate whether or not the performance gains pay off for the added code complexity.
In .NET Core 3.0 and later Math.Round and Decimal.Round can truncate digits through the new MidpointRounding.ToZero. For positive numbers, MidpointRounding.ToNegativeInfinity has the same effect while for negative numbers the equivalent is MidpointRounding.ToPositiveInfinity.
These lines:
Console.WriteLine(Math.Round(3.4679, 2,MidpointRounding.ToZero));
Console.WriteLine(Math.Round(3.9999, 2,MidpointRounding.ToZero));
Console.WriteLine(Math.Round(-3.4679, 2,MidpointRounding.ToZero));
Console.WriteLine(Math.Round(-3.9999, 2,MidpointRounding.ToZero));
Produce :
3.46
3.99
-3.46
-3.99
If you don't worry too much about performance and your end result can be a string, the following approach will be resilient to floating precision issues:
string Truncate(double value, int precision)
{
if (precision < 0)
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("Precision cannot be less than zero");
}
string result = value.ToString();
int dot = result.IndexOf('.');
if (dot < 0)
{
return result;
}
int newLength = dot + precision + 1;
if (newLength == dot + 1)
{
newLength--;
}
if (newLength > result.Length)
{
newLength = result.Length;
}
return result.Substring(0, newLength);
}
Here is my implementation of TRUNC function
private static object Tranc(List<Expression.Expression> p)
{
var target = (decimal)p[0].Evaluate();
// check if formula contains only one argument
var digits = p.Count > 1
? (decimal) p[1].Evaluate()
: 0;
return Math.Truncate((double)target * Math.Pow(10, (int)digits)) / Math.Pow(10, (int)digits);
}
Apart from the above solutions,there is another way we can achieve .
decimal val=23.5678m,finalValue;
//take the decimal part
int decimalPos = val.ToString().IndexOf('.');
string decimalPart = val.ToString().Substring(decimalPosition+1,val.ToString().Length);
//will result.56
string wholePart=val.ToString().Substring(0,decimalPos-1);
//concantinate and parse for decimal.
string truncatedValue=wholePart+decimalPart;//"23.56"
bool isDecimal=Decimal.tryParse(truncatedValue,out finalValue);//finalValue=23.56
Under some conditions this may suffice.
I had a decimal value of
SubCent = 0.0099999999999999999999999999M that tends to format to |SubCent:0.010000| via string.Format("{0:N6}", SubCent ); and many other formatting choices.
My requirement was not to round the SubCent value, but not log every digit either.
The following met my requirement:
string.Format("SubCent:{0}|",
SubCent.ToString("N10", CultureInfo.InvariantCulture).Substring(0, 9));
Which returns the string : |SubCent:0.0099999|
To accommodate the value having an integer part the following is a start.
tmpValFmt = 567890.0099999933999229999999M.ToString("0.0000000000000000000000000000");
decPt = tmpValFmt.LastIndexOf(".");
if (decPt < 0) decPt = 0;
valFmt4 = string.Format("{0}", tmpValFmt.Substring(0, decPt + 9));
Which returns the string :
valFmt4 = "567890.00999999"
This is what i did:
c1 = a1 - b1;
d1 = Math.Ceiling(c1 * 100) / 100;
subtracting two inputted numbers without rounding up or down the decimals. because the other solutions does not work for me. don't know if it will work for others, i just want to share this :) Hope it works tho for those who's finding solution to a problem similar to mine. Thanks
PS: i'm a beginner so feel free to point out something on this. :D this is good if you're actually dealing with money, cause of the cents right? it only have 2 decimal places and rounding it is a no no.
public static decimal TruncateDecimalPlaces(this decimal value, int precision)
{
try
{
step = (decimal)Math.Pow(10, precision);
decimal tmp = Math.Truncate(step * value);
return tmp / step;
}
catch (OverflowException)
{
step = (decimal)Math.Pow(10, -1 * precision);
return value - (value % step);
}
}
i am using this function to truncate value after decimal in a string variable
public static string TruncateFunction(string value)
{
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(value)) return "";
else
{
string[] split = value.Split('.');
if (split.Length > 0)
{
string predecimal = split[0];
string postdecimal = split[1];
postdecimal = postdecimal.Length > 6 ? postdecimal.Substring(0, 6) : postdecimal;
return predecimal + "." + postdecimal;
}
else return value;
}
}
public static void ReminderDigints(decimal? number, out decimal? Value, out decimal? Reminder)
{
Reminder = null;
Value = null;
if (number.HasValue)
{
Value = Math.Floor(number.Value);
Reminder = (number - Math.Truncate(number.Value));
}
}
decimal? number= 50.55m;
ReminderDigints(number, out decimal? Value, out decimal? Reminder);
Actually you want 3.46 from 3.4679 . This is only representation of characters.So there is nothing to do with math function.Math function is not intended to do this work. Simply use the following code.
Dim str1 As String
str1=""
str1 ="3.4679"
Dim substring As String = str1.Substring(0, 3)
' Write the results to the screen.
Console.WriteLine("Substring: {0}", substring)
Or
Please use the following code.
Public function result(ByVal x1 As Double) As String
Dim i as Int32
i=0
Dim y as String
y = ""
For Each ch as Char In x1.ToString
If i>3 then
Exit For
Else
y + y +ch
End if
i=i+1
Next
return y
End Function
The above code can be modified for any numbers Put the following code in a button click event
Dim str As String
str= result(3.4679)
MsgBox("The number is " & str)
