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 gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark tests the performance difference between creating a new instance of `Intl.DateTimeFormat` for each formatting operation and caching the instance for repeated use.

**Options Compared:**

* **`new Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-US', options).format(new Date());`**: This approach creates a new `Intl.DateTimeFormat` object with the specified options (`month`, `year`, `day`, etc.) every time it needs to format a date.

* **`cached.format(new Date());`**: This approach caches a single `Intl.DateTimeFormat` object, created once at the beginning of the benchmark, and reuses it for all formatting operations.

**Pros/Cons:**

* **Creating a new instance each time (first option):**
    * **Con:** More computationally expensive because  the formatting rules need to be parsed and initialized every time. This leads to slower performance. 
* **Caching the instance (second option):**
    * **Pro:** Significantly faster because the formatting logic is already set up and ready to use.

**Other Considerations:**

* The `options` object defines the specific way dates are formatted (e.g., two-digit month, numeric year). 
*  The benchmark measures how many times a date can be formatted per second (ExecutionsPerSecond), highlighting the performance improvement achieved by caching.

**Alternatives:**

While caching is generally the most efficient approach for repeated formatting, there could be alternatives depending on the specific use case:

* **Template Literals**:  Using template literals with placeholders and ES6's date object methods might offer a simpler and potentially faster solution in some scenarios.

```javascript
   const date = new Date();
   const formattedDate = `${date.getMonth() + 1}- ${date.getDate()} - ${date.getFullYear()}`;
   ```

* **Third-Party Libraries**: For more complex formatting needs, specialized libraries might offer optimized solutions and additional features.

Let me know if you have any further questions!

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 gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):