Benchmark: cached Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString

Tests:

Intl.NumberFormat
var formatter = new Intl.NumberFormat("en-US") var a = formatter.format("10000");
toLocalString
var a = "10000".toLocaleString("en-US");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl.NumberFormat
toLocalString

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 137 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Intl.NumberFormat	35800.1 Ops/sec
toLocalString	14018471.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and analyzed.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is used to compare the performance of two different approaches for formatting numbers: using the `Intl.NumberFormat` API (Internationalized Number Format) and the simple string conversion method (`toLocalString`).

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Intl.NumberFormat**: This test case creates an instance of the `Intl.NumberFormat` API with the locale set to "en-US". It then formats a number ("10000") using this formatter.
2. **toLocalString**: This test case directly converts the string representation of a number ("10000") to its localized version using the `toLocaleString` method.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

* **Intl.NumberFormat**: Uses the `Intl.NumberFormat` API, which is designed for internationalization and locale-specific formatting.
* **toLocalString**: Uses a simple string conversion method that relies on the browser's built-in string formatting mechanisms.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark doesn't explicitly compare other options, but we can infer some possibilities:

* Using different locales (e.g., "en-US" vs. "fr-FR") or number formats (e.g., decimal vs. scientific notation).
* Implementing custom formatting using regular expressions or other methods.
* Testing for specific features like rounding, truncation, or currency formatting.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Intl.NumberFormat**

Pros:

* Provides a robust and standardized way to format numbers with locale-specific considerations.
* Handles complex formatting rules, such as thousands separators and decimal points.

Cons:

* May have additional overhead due to its internationalization features.
* Can be slower than simple string conversion methods for certain use cases.

**toLocalString**

Pros:

* Simple and lightweight, making it suitable for low-latency or high-throughput applications.
* Likely to be faster than Intl.NumberFormat for simple formatting tasks.

Cons:

* May not provide accurate locale-specific formatting results without explicit customization.
* Can be less predictable and less maintainable due to its reliance on browser-specific string formatting mechanisms.

**Library**

In the provided benchmark, the `Intl.NumberFormat` library is used. The `Intl` object provides a set of APIs for internationalization, including the `NumberFormat` API, which allows developers to format numbers according to specific locales and conventions.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The test case uses the `toLocaleString` method, which is a part of the JavaScript standard library. This method is used to convert a number or string representation to its localized form.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches for formatting numbers include:

* Using regular expressions or custom functions to implement formatting rules.
* Utilizing third-party libraries like moment.js or date-fns for more complex date and time formatting tasks.
* Implementing custom formatting logic using JavaScript functions or closures.

Related benchmarks:

cached Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Intl.NumberFormat

toLocalString

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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