Benchmark: new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat

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

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 21 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 16 runs

cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()

944K/s

cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts()

395K/s

new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts

30K/s

new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()

29K/s

Fastest: cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format() (32.0x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format(): 944,157 ops/sec
• cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts(): 395,325 ops/sec
• new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts: 29,841 ops/sec
• new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format(): 29,470 ops/sec

Firefox 5 runs

cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()

1.0M/s

cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts()

507K/s

new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts

26K/s

new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()

26K/s

Fastest: cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format() (40.5x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format(): 1,043,725 ops/sec
• cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts(): 507,245 ops/sec
• new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts: 25,829 ops/sec
• new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format(): 25,758 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()
cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()
new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts
cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/149.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 149 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()

2.4M/s

cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts()

946K/s

new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts

60K/s

new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()

60K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()	2,403,828 Ops/sec
cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts()	946,197 Ops/sec
new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts	60,430 Ops/sec
new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()	60,008 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance impact of caching calls to `new Intl.DateTimeFormat` in JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Creating a new `Intl.DateTimeFormat` instance with the desired options**: This involves calling `new Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-US', options)` where `options` is an object containing formatting preferences (e.g., month, year, day, hour, minute, second).
2. **Caching the result of creating a new `Intl.DateTimeFormat` instance**: This involves storing the result of the first call in a variable (`cached`) and reusing it instead of recreating the instance on subsequent calls.

**Pros and Cons**

* Creating a new instance with options:
	+ Pros: allows for easy customization, flexibility.
	+ Cons: can be slower due to the overhead of creating a new object.
* Caching the result:
	+ Pros: reduces memory allocation, caching overhead, and potential slowdowns.
	+ Cons: requires manual management of the cache (e.g., ensuring it's updated when options change).

**Library and Purpose**

`Intl.DateTimeFormat` is a built-in JavaScript library that provides internationalized formatting for dates and times. It allows developers to customize the format and presentation of date and time values in a culturally sensitive manner.

In this benchmark, `Intl.DateTimeFormat` is used to format dates and times according to user-defined preferences.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's worth noting that `Intl.DateTimeFormat` uses some advanced Unicode properties and formatting rules that may be unfamiliar to some developers.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to create a similar benchmark for another internationalized formatting library or approach, you could consider alternatives such as:

* Using a different language-specific formatting library (e.g., `DateTimeFormat` in Node.js)
* Implementing a custom formatting solution using JavaScript and CSS
* Comparing the performance of different caching strategies (e.g., memoization, cache inheritance)

Keep in mind that each alternative will have its own pros and cons, which should be carefully evaluated when designing a new benchmark.

new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat (version: 0)

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

Comparing performance of: `new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format() vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format() vs new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts()`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()

cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()

new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts

cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts()

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 21 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 16 runs

Firefox 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat (version: 0)

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

Comparing performance of: new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format() vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format() vs new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts()

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()

cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()

new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts

cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts()

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 21 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 16 runs

Firefox 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format() vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format() vs new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts()`