Benchmark: Number.toLocaleString vs Intl.NumberFormat HANA2

Tests:

Intl.NumberFormat
const number = 2342523; const translatedString = new Intl.NumberFormat().format(number);
Number.toLocaleString
const number = 2342523; const translatedString = number.toLocaleString(undefined, { maximumFractionDigits: 15, });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl.NumberFormat
Number.toLocaleString

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.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two JavaScript microbenchmarks that test the performance of converting numbers to strings using different approaches:

1. **Intl.NumberFormat**: This approach uses the `Intl.NumberFormat` API, which is a part of the Intl (Internationalization) module in JavaScript. The `NumberFormat` object is used to format numbers according to a specific locale and style.
2. **Number.toLocaleString**: This approach uses the `toLocaleString` method on a number value, with options provided as an argument.

**Options being compared**

The two approaches differ in how they format the number:

* **Intl.NumberFormat**: The formatted string is generated using the `format()` method of the `NumberFormat` object. This method takes a locale and options as arguments and returns a formatted string.
* **Number.toLocaleString**: The formatted string is generated using the `toLocaleString()` method on a number value, with specific options provided (e.g., maximumFractionDigits). This method takes an optional options argument and returns a formatted string.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Intl.NumberFormat**:
	+ Pros: More flexible and customizable, as it allows for different locales and styles.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the need to create a `NumberFormat` object and access its methods.
* **Number.toLocaleString**:
	+ Pros: Generally faster, as it directly formats the number without creating an intermediate object.
	+ Cons: Less flexible and customizable, as options are limited to those supported by the `toLocaleString()` method.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, neither approach uses a library in the classical sense. However, the `Intl.NumberFormat` API relies on a set of internationalization libraries and frameworks that provide support for different locales and styles. The `Number.toLocaleString` method also relies on the browser's or engine's implementation of this method.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The benchmark uses some special JavaScript features:

* **Intl**: The Intl module is used to access the Internationalization API, which provides support for formatting numbers according to different locales and styles.
* **Template literals**: The `const translatedString = new Intl.NumberFormat().format(number);` line uses template literals to create a formatted string.

**Other alternatives**

For this specific benchmark, other alternatives might include:

* Using a library like Moment.js or Luxon to format dates and numbers.
* Implementing a custom formatting function using a regular expression or another approach.
* Using a different internationalization API or library that provides similar functionality.

However, for the specific use case of formatting numbers according to a locale and style, the Intl.NumberFormat and Number.toLocaleString approaches are likely the most suitable and efficient options.

Related benchmarks:

Number.toLocaleString vs Intl.NumberFormat HANA2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.NumberFormat vs Number.toLocaleString

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Intl.NumberFormat

Number.toLocaleString

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):