Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
cached Intl.NumberFormat vs new Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocaleString
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
cached Intl.NumberFormat vs new Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocaleString
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
cached Intl.NumberFormat
window.a = window.a || new Intl.NumberFormat("en-US"); var a = window.a.format("10000")
new Intl.NumberFormat
var a = new Intl.NumberFormat("en-US");
toLocaleString
var a = "10000".toLocaleString("en-US");
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
cached Intl.NumberFormat
new Intl.NumberFormat
toLocaleString
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
gemma2:9b
, generated one year ago):
This benchmark compares three different ways to format a number as currency using JavaScript: **1. `cached Intl.NumberFormat`:** This approach creates an instance of `Intl.NumberFormat` once and stores it in the global scope (`window.a`). On each subsequent call, it uses the cached object to format the number. * **Pro:** The most efficient option as it avoids repeatedly creating new instances of `Intl.NumberFormat`. * **Con:** Requires a bit more setup by storing the instance globally. May be less ideal if you need multiple different number formatting styles. **2. `new Intl.NumberFormat`:** This approach creates a new instance of `Intl.NumberFormat` every time it needs to format a number. * **Pro:** Simpler to implement, as it doesn't require global variable storage. * **Con:** Least efficient due to the repeated instantiation and potential for garbage collection overhead. **3. `toLocaleString`:** This method directly formats a string using the default locale settings of the browser. * **Pro:** The simplest and most straightforward option. No external libraries required. * **Con:** Offers less control over formatting compared to `Intl.NumberFormat`. **Other Alternatives:** * You could consider using libraries like "numeral.js" or "accounting.js" for more complex number formatting needs, including custom symbols, separators, and rounding options. However, these add an extra dependency. **Important Note:** The benchmark results are highly dependent on the user's browser, operating system, device, and network conditions. It's essential to consider multiple test environments and averages across different scenarios for a more accurate performance comparison.
Related benchmarks:
Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString
cached Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString
Cached instance of Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString
Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString vs cached Intl.NumberFormat
What's faster? cached Intl.NumberFormat vs new Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocaleString currency
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?