Benchmark: new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached

Script Preparation code:

const TWO_DIGIT = '2-digit';

var options = {
      month: TWO_DIGIT,
      year: 'numeric',
      day: TWO_DIGIT,
      hour: TWO_DIGIT,
      hour12: false,
      minute: TWO_DIGIT,
      second: TWO_DIGIT,
    }

var cached = new Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-US', options);

Tests:

new Intl.DateTimeFormat
new Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-US', options).format(new Date());
cached Intl.DateTimeFormat
cached.format(new Date());

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new Intl.DateTimeFormat
cached Intl.DateTimeFormat

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 llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what this benchmark is testing and explain the options, pros/cons, and other considerations.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is measuring the performance impact of caching calls to `new Intl.DateTimeFormat` in JavaScript. Specifically, it's comparing two approaches:

1. Creating a new instance of `Intl.DateTimeFormat` every time (`new Intl.DateTimeFormat`) vs
2. Caching the creation of `Intl.DateTimeFormat` and reusing it (`cached Intl.DateTimeFormat`)

**What options are being compared?**

The options being compared are:

* **Creating a new instance of `Intl.DateTimeFormat` every time (`new Intl.DateTimeFormat`)**: This approach creates a new `DateTimeFormat` object every time the function is called.
* **Caching the creation of `Intl.DateTimeFormat` and reusing it (`cached Intl.DateTimeFormat`)**: In this approach, a single instance of `DateTimeFormat` is created once and reused multiple times.

**Pros/Cons of each approach**

Here are the pros and cons of each approach:

### Creating a new instance of `Intl.DateTimeFormat` every time

* **Pros**: No memory overhead for caching; can be useful when the formatting options change frequently.
* **Cons**: Inefficient, as creating a new object on every call is expensive.

### Caching the creation of `Intl.DateTimeFormat` and reusing it

* **Pros**: Efficient, as the cached instance can be reused multiple times.
* **Cons**: Requires memory to cache the instance; may not be suitable when the formatting options change frequently.

**Other considerations**

When deciding between these approaches, consider:

1. **Frequency of changes in formatting options**: If the formatting options change infrequently, caching the instance might be a good approach.
2. **Memory constraints**: If memory is limited, creating a new instance every time might be more suitable.
3. **Performance requirements**: If high performance is critical, caching the instance can provide significant benefits.

**What library or feature is being used?**

The `Intl.DateTimeFormat` object is part of the JavaScript Internationalization API (I18N), which provides methods for formatting and parsing dates and numbers in a locale-specific way.

**Other alternatives?**

One alternative to consider when comparing these approaches is using a memoized function, such as:

```javascript
const cachedDateTimeFormat = (() => {
  const cache = {};
  return (options) => {
    if (!cache[JSON.stringify(options)]) {
      cache[JSON.stringify(options)] = new Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-US', options);
    }
    return cache[JSON.stringify(options)];
  };
})();
```

This approach uses a memoization technique to store and reuse instances of `DateTimeFormat` based on the input options.

Related benchmarks:

new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached (version: 0)

measure the perf impact of caching calls to new Intl.DateTimeFormat

Comparing performance of: new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

new Intl.DateTimeFormat

cached Intl.DateTimeFormat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):