Benchmark: Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalStringaa

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

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

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl.NumberFormat
toLocalString
cached Intl.NumberFormat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:150.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/150.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 150 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Intl.NumberFormat	37695.8 Ops/sec
toLocalString	750837824.0 Ops/sec
cached Intl.NumberFormat	2286292.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case that compares three approaches to format numbers in JavaScript:

1. `Intl.NumberFormat`
2. `toLocaleString` (without caching)
3. `cached Intl.NumberFormat`

The test aims to measure the performance of these approaches and determine which one is the fastest.

**Options compared**

Here's a brief overview of each option:

* **Intl.NumberFormat**: This is a part of the Internationalization API in JavaScript, introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It provides a standardized way to format numbers according to the user's locale and language. `Intl.NumberFormat` creates an instance that can be configured with different locales and options.
* **toLocaleString**: This method is also part of the Internationalization API and allows you to format numbers according to the user's locale and language, but without creating an instance like `Intl.NumberFormat`. It returns a string representation of the number in the specified format.
* **cached Intl.NumberFormat**: This approach uses caching to improve performance. The `Intl.NumberFormat` instance is created only once and reused across multiple executions.

**Pros and cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons for each option:

* **Intl.NumberFormat**
	+ Pros: Standardized, locale-aware, easy to use.
	+ Cons: Creates an instance, may have overhead due to locale switching.
* **toLocaleString**
	+ Pros: Lightweight, no instance creation, simple.
	+ Cons: No control over locales, format is limited to the default locale.
* **cached Intl.NumberFormat**
	+ Pros: Improves performance by reusing instances, controlled locale and formatting.
	+ Cons: May not be as lightweight as `toLocaleString`, caching can have side effects.

**Library and purpose**

In this benchmark, two libraries are used:

1. **Intl.NumberFormat**: This is a built-in library in JavaScript, introduced in ES6. It provides the functionality for internationalized number formatting.
2. None explicitly mentioned for `toLocaleString` but it uses the browser's locale engine.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark, as it only focuses on simple string formatting using built-in methods.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to number formatting, consider the following options:

1. **Using a custom implementation**: You can implement your own number formatting logic using JavaScript functions and loops.
2. **Using other libraries or modules**: There are various libraries and modules available that provide internationalized number formatting capabilities, such as Moment.js or numjs.
3. **Server-side alternatives**: If you're building an application with server-side rendering, consider using server-side templating engines like Handlebars or Pug to format numbers.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and might not be suitable for all use cases.

I hope this explanation helps!

Related benchmarks:

Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalStringaa (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString vs cached Intl.NumberFormat

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Intl.NumberFormat

toLocalString

cached Intl.NumberFormat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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