Benchmark: Cached instance of Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString

Script Preparation code:

var formatter = new Intl.NumberFormat("en-US")

Tests:

Intl.NumberFormat
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:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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.

**Benchmark Purpose:**
The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches for formatting numbers:

1. Using the `Intl.NumberFormat` API, which creates a cached instance of the formatter and then uses it.
2. Using the `toLocaleString()` method directly on the number string.

**Options Compared:**

* **Option 1 (Intl.NumberFormat)**:
	+ Creates a new instance of `Intl.NumberFormat`, caching its configuration (locale, currency, etc.).
	+ Uses this cached instance to format numbers, which means it avoids the overhead of creating a new formatter every time.
* **Option 2 (toLocaleString())**:
	+ Formats numbers by converting them to strings using `toLocaleString()`.
	+ Does not create any caching or reuse instances.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Intl.NumberFormat**:
	+ Pros:
		- Reuses cached instance, reducing overhead.
		- Can handle complex formatting options like date, time, currency, etc.
	+ Cons:
		- May require more memory for caching, especially with large datasets.
		- Some browsers might not support or enable this API for security reasons.
* **toLocaleString()**:
	+ Pros:
		- Lightweight and does not create any additional overhead.
		- Simple and widely supported across browsers.
	+ Cons:
		- Does not provide fine-grained control over formatting options.
		- Requires converting numbers to strings, which can be less efficient.

**Library/ API Used:**
The `Intl.NumberFormat` API is a part of the Internationalization (i18n) API in JavaScript, which provides a way to format numbers according to the user's locale. The `toLocaleString()` method is also part of this API, but it's used differently here as a standalone formatting function.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
There are no specific JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It's purely focused on comparing two different approaches for formatting numbers.

**Other Alternatives:**
If you need more control over the formatting process, you could also consider using libraries like:

* `moment.js` (for date and time formatting)
* ` numeral.js` (for formatting numbers with precision control)
* `formatjs` (a comprehensive library for internationalization and localization)

These alternatives might offer additional features or customization options not available in the built-in `Intl.NumberFormat` API.

Overall, this benchmark is designed to help developers understand the trade-offs between caching instance creation and direct method usage when it comes to formatting numbers. By comparing these two approaches, you can make informed decisions about which method best suits your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

Cached instance of Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString (version: 0)

Cache creation of NumberFormat instance and then just use it instead of creating a new one

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

No previous run results

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