21

I want to round a DateTime to the nearest 5 seconds. This is the way I'm currently doing it but I was wondering if there was a better or more concise way?

DateTime now = DateTime.Now;
int second = 0;

// round to nearest 5 second mark
if (now.Second % 5 > 2.5)
{
    // round up
    second = now.Second + (5 - (now.Second % 5));
}
else
{
    // round down
    second = now.Second - (now.Second % 5);
}

DateTime rounded = new DateTime(now.Year, now.Month, now.Day, now.Hour, now.Minute, second);

Please note that I've found these two previous questions, however they truncate rather than round the time.

Community
  • 1
  • 1
Damovisa
  • 19,213
  • 14
  • 66
  • 88

8 Answers8

49

(Sorry for the resurrection; I recognize it's an old and answered question - just adding some extra code for Google's sake.)

I started with JayMcClellan's answer, but then I wanted it to be more generic, rounding to arbitrary intervals (not just 5 seconds). So I ended up leaving Jay's method for one that uses Math.Round on ticks and put it into an extension method that can take arbitrary intervals and also offers the option of changing the rounding logic (banker's rounding versus away-from-zero). I'm posting here in case this is helpful to someone else as well:

    public static TimeSpan Round(this TimeSpan time, TimeSpan roundingInterval, MidpointRounding roundingType) {
        return new TimeSpan(
            Convert.ToInt64(Math.Round(
                time.Ticks / (decimal)roundingInterval.Ticks,
                roundingType
            )) * roundingInterval.Ticks
        );
    }

    public static TimeSpan Round(this TimeSpan time, TimeSpan roundingInterval) {
        return Round(time, roundingInterval, MidpointRounding.ToEven);
    }

    public static DateTime Round(this DateTime datetime, TimeSpan roundingInterval) {
        return new DateTime((datetime - DateTime.MinValue).Round(roundingInterval).Ticks);
    }

It won't win any awards for bare efficiency, but I find it easy to read and intuitive to use. Example usage:

new DateTime(2010, 11, 4, 10, 28, 27).Round(TimeSpan.FromMinutes(1)); // rounds to 2010.11.04 10:28:00
new DateTime(2010, 11, 4, 13, 28, 27).Round(TimeSpan.FromDays(1)); // rounds to 2010.11.05 00:00
new TimeSpan(0, 2, 26).Round(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5)); // rounds to 00:02:25
new TimeSpan(3, 34, 0).Round(TimeSpan.FromMinutes(37); // rounds to 03:42:00...for all your round-to-37-minute needs
Community
  • 1
  • 1
Matt Winckler
  • 2,223
  • 2
  • 23
  • 27
  • This is nice code for rounding to the *nearest* `DateTime`, but I also want the ability to round *up* to a multiple of `roundingInterval`. I tried modifying the `DateTime` overload to also take a `MidpointRounding` then pass it along to the other overload. But that didn't add the desired ability. – HappyNomad Nov 26 '13 at 08:22
  • @HappyNomad `MidpointRounding` only comes into play when the value is at the actual midpoint. If you always want to round up, you would need to add an overload or change the first function to use `Math.Ceiling` instead of `Math.Round`, and ignore the `roundingType` altogether. – Matt Winckler Nov 26 '13 at 16:46
  • 2
    Suggest your maintain the same `Kind` on the new `DateTime` you create. – Nigel Touch Nov 29 '13 at 22:17
31

The Ticks count of a DateTime represents 100-nanosecond intervals, so you can round to the nearest 5 seconds by rounding to the nearest 50000000-tick interval like this:

  DateTime now = DateTime.Now;
  DateTime rounded = new DateTime(((now.Ticks + 25000000) / 50000000) * 50000000);

That's more concise, but not necessarily better. It depends on whether you prefer brevity and speed over code clarity. Yours is arguably easier to understand.

JayMcClellan
  • 1,601
  • 1
  • 11
  • 10
  • 4
    This works well because 59 seconds rounded to the nearest 5 will yield 60, which you can't pass as the 'seconds' parameter to the DateTime constructor. This way you avoid that pitfall. – Matt Hamilton Apr 20 '09 at 02:31
  • 1
    One potential pitfall, to criticize my own answer, is that I'm not sure how the DateTime accounts for leap-seconds. The tick count is measured from 12:00:00 midnight, January 1, 0001. So depending on the number of leap seconds since then and whether DateTime accounts for them, you might find that the resulting Seconds value is not a multiple of 5. – JayMcClellan Apr 20 '09 at 02:38
  • Wow, now that is detailed... I think I'm happy enough to ignore a potential error every approximately 18 months. – Damovisa Apr 20 '09 at 02:45
  • 2
    you can make it more readable by using TimeSpan.TicksPerSecond. – Erich Mirabal Apr 20 '09 at 02:50
  • Or use 24999999 to get the behavior in the question, where multiples of 2.5 round *down*. Other than that, good solution. Is there *any* language that allows you to use commas in numbers to make them more readable? I would love to see this feature since numbers like 50000000 annoy the carp out of me. 50,000,000 would be so much better. – paxdiablo Apr 20 '09 at 03:03
  • @Pax - you're right, the question will round down for anything between 2.5 and 3sec. It's not really how I need it to behave, I was just rushed. – Damovisa Apr 20 '09 at 03:17
  • JayMcClellan: It doesn't matter. .NET (and Windows) can't handle leap seconds. – porges Sep 26 '10 at 21:44
  • 1
    You may improve readability by using `TimeSpan.TicksPerSecond` and `Math.Round` – Stefan Steinegger Apr 11 '12 at 15:13
2

Like you mentioned, it's fairly easy to truncate. So, just add 2.5 seconds, then truncate down.

Sophie Alpert
  • 139,698
  • 36
  • 220
  • 238
  • If I add 2.5 seconds, truncate to the nearest 5 seconds and subtract the 2.5 seconds, I'll end up with 2.5sec, 7.5sec, 12.5sec etc... – Damovisa Apr 20 '09 at 02:28
1

I can't think of a better way, although I would probably factor out the round method:

static int Round(int n, int r)
{
    if ((n % r) <= r / 2)
    {
        return n - (n % r); 
    }
    return n + (r - (n % r));
}

Also, % returns an int, so comparing it to 2.5 strikes me as a little odd, even though it is correct. I'd use >= 3.

RossFabricant
  • 12,364
  • 3
  • 41
  • 50
  • Yeah, I know what you mean with the comparing it with 2.5 - it felt a little uncomfortable. As you say, it is correct though, and it makes it clearer what the intention is. 2.5 is clearly half of 5 while 3 seems not to fit. – Damovisa Apr 20 '09 at 02:37
  • I prefer to round integers like this: `((n + (r>>1)) / r) * r` (round midpoints up) or `((n + r>>1 - 1) / r) * r` (round midpoints down). If I know `r` is odd I just use the first one because they work the same for odd `r`. This approach uses only one division (vs 3) and no branching compared to your function. – Roman Starkov Mar 23 '10 at 10:05
1

I couldn't recognize the difference between C# and a bar of soap (well, I couldn't when I originally wrote this answer, things have changed quite a bit in the years since) but, if you're looking for a more concise solution, I would just put the whole thing in a function - there's little that will be more concise in your code than a simple call to said function:

DateTime rounded = roundTo5Secs (DateTime.Now);

Then you can put whatever you want in the function and just document how it works, such as (assuming these are all integer operations):

secBase = now.Second / 5;
secExtra = now.Second % 5;
if (secExtra > 2) {
    return new DateTime(now.Year, now.Month, now.Day, now.Hour, now.Minute,
        secBase + 5);
}
return new DateTime(now.Year, now.Month, now.Day, now.Hour, now.Minute,
    secBase);

You may also need some extra checks if secBase goes to 60 (unless C# DateTime objects are smart enough to bump up the minute (and hour if minute goes to 60, and so on).

paxdiablo
  • 854,327
  • 234
  • 1,573
  • 1,953
1

How about this (blending a few answers together)? I think it conveys the meaning well and should handle the edge cases (rounding to the next minute) elegantly due to AddSeconds.

// truncate to multiple of 5
int second = 5 * (int) (now.Second / 5);
DateTime dt = new DateTime(..., second);

// round-up if necessary
if (now.Second % 5 > 2.5)
{
    dt = dt.AddSeconds(5);
}

The Ticks approach as shown by Jay is more concise, but may be a bit less readable. If you use that approach, at least reference TimeSpan.TicksPerSecond.

Erich Mirabal
  • 9,860
  • 3
  • 34
  • 39
  • -1: doesn't work if the original time contains fractions of a second. – Joe Apr 20 '09 at 04:48
  • You are right. I rolled back to a previous edit that was more clear in handling that case – Erich Mirabal Apr 20 '09 at 11:52
  • Thanks for keeping me honest :) I woke up this morning to this -1 and was like: "Argh! Stupid mistake. Don't think you can optimize while sleepy!" – Erich Mirabal Apr 20 '09 at 17:32
  • As a matter of curiosity, should the answers that result in an exception (from mishandling the case where second == 60) also not get voted down? – Erich Mirabal Apr 20 '09 at 17:56
0

Technically, you can never correctly round to an odd interval given only seconds.

2, 4, 6, 8, 10 <-- are no problem

If you are 'distributing' times in intervals and if the jitter is low, truncation is a lot more tractable.

If you can pass milliseconds and round at a 500mS mark, you will be able to to odd seconds and also slash the effect of jitter way down or eliminate it entirely.

Jim K.
  • 1
  • 1
0

Most simple and accurate one-liner:

private static DateTime QuantizeToEachNthSecond(DateTime dateTime, int nthSecond = 5) { return dateTime.AddTicks(-(dateTime.Ticks % (nthSecond * TimeSpan.TicksPerSecond))); }
so, if you like each 5th second, if will be truncated to e.g. "10:12:02" -> "10:12:00", "10:12:08" -> "10:12:05" and so on.