Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
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
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>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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):
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 Intl.DateTimeFormat
Cached vs new Intl.DateTimeFormat
new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat vs date method
new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat vs custom
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?