Benchmark: Intl.NumberFormat vs Intl.NumberFormat-memo

Tests:

Intl.NumberFormat
function format () { return new Intl.NumberFormat("en-US").format("10000"); }
Intl.NumberFormat-memo
var formatter = new Intl.NumberFormat("en-US") function format () { return formatter.format("10000"); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl.NumberFormat
Intl.NumberFormat-memo

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:139.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/139.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 139 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Intl.NumberFormat	1613303424.0 Ops/sec
Intl.NumberFormat-memo	1724725.0 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 JSON data and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a simple JavaScript function that formats a number using the `Intl.NumberFormat` API. The function takes no arguments and returns a string representation of the number in the specified locale (English-US). This function is used as a baseline to compare with other implementations.

There are two variations:

1. **Intl.NumberFormat**: This implementation uses the `Intl.NumberFormat` constructor to create an instance, which then formats the input number using its internal algorithms.
2. **Intl.NumberFormat-memo**: This implementation uses the same `Intl.NumberFormat` constructor but also caches the result of the first execution for subsequent calls, making it a memoized version.

**Comparison**

The main difference between these two implementations is the caching mechanism in **Intl.NumberFormat-memo**. This approach can provide a performance boost by avoiding unnecessary reformatting for repeated inputs.

Pros of **Intl.NumberFormat**:

* More accurate results due to caching
* Might be considered more "correct" as it follows the standard library's behavior

Cons of **Intl.NumberFormat**:

* Slower performance due to caching
* May not be suitable for applications requiring high performance and frequent formatting

Pros of **Intl.NumberFormat-memo**:

* Faster performance due to caching
* Suitable for applications requiring high performance and frequent formatting

Cons of **Intl.NumberFormat-memo**:

* Less accurate results due to caching
* Might be considered less "correct" as it deviates from the standard library's behavior

Other considerations:

* The use of `Intl.NumberFormat` is a good practice as it follows modern standards and is widely supported.
* The memoization mechanism in **Intl.NumberFormat-memo** can be useful in certain scenarios, such as formatting large datasets or performing many concurrent formatting operations.

**Libraries**

There are no external libraries used in this benchmark. The `Intl.NumberFormat` API is a built-in JavaScript feature that provides locale-aware number formatting capabilities.

**Special JS features or syntax**

None of the provided test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ECMAScript 2022 features, which means they should be compatible with most modern browsers and environments.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives to compare these implementations could include:

* Using a third-party library like moment.js for number formatting
* Implementing custom formatting logic using regular expressions or other techniques
* Comparing performance between different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey)

Related benchmarks:

Intl.NumberFormat vs Intl.NumberFormat-memo (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.NumberFormat vs Intl.NumberFormat-memo

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Intl.NumberFormat

Intl.NumberFormat-memo

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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