Benchmark: Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString rev.3

Script Preparation code:

var formatter = new Intl.NumberFormat("ru-RU", {
    minimumFractionDigits: 1,
    maximumFractionDigits: 1,
});

Tests:

Intl.NumberFormat
var a = new Intl.NumberFormat("ru-RU", { minimumFractionDigits: 1, maximumFractionDigits: 1, }).format("10000");
toLocalString
var a = (10000).toLocaleString("ru-RU", { minimumFractionDigits: 1, maximumFractionDigits: 1, });
Used defined formatter
var a = formatter.format(10000);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl.NumberFormat
toLocalString
Used defined formatter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Used defined formatter

3.9M/s

toLocalString

67K/s

Intl.NumberFormat

62K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Used defined formatter	3,900,100 Ops/sec
toLocalString	67,097 Ops/sec
Intl.NumberFormat	62,446 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 explanation of the benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test, specifically comparing three approaches for formatting numbers with decimal places: `Intl.NumberFormat`, `toLocaleString`, and using a defined formatter (`formatter`).

**Options Compared**

1. **`Intl.NumberFormat`**: This approach uses the Internationalization API to format numbers according to locale-specific conventions. In this case, it's used in Russian (ru-RU) locale with 1 decimal digit minimum and maximum.
2. **`toLocaleString`**: This method formats a number as a string, taking into account the locale and options specified.
3. **Using a defined formatter (`formatter`)**: The test creates an instance of `Intl.NumberFormat` once and reuses it to format numbers.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **`Intl.NumberFormat`**:
	* Pros: Encourages consistent formatting across locales, provides more control over formatting options.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of creating a new instance for each formatting operation.
2. **`toLocaleString`**:
	* Pros: Fast and lightweight, suitable for simple use cases.
	* Cons: Less control over formatting options, may produce inconsistent results across locales.
3. **Using a defined formatter (`formatter`)**:
	* Pros: Faster execution times since the formatter instance is reused, provides consistent results.
	* Cons: Requires creating an initial instance of the formatter, which might incur some overhead.

**Library and Purpose**

The `Intl.NumberFormat` library is part of the JavaScript Internationalization API. Its purpose is to provide a standardized way to format numbers according to locale-specific conventions, ensuring consistency across different regions and cultures.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark that require specific explanations. However, it's worth noting that `Intl.NumberFormat` uses Unicode characters to represent decimal points, which can be useful for formatting numbers with non-standard decimal separators.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need more control over number formatting or want a lightweight alternative to `Intl.NumberFormat`, consider using:

* `Number.prototype.toLocaleString()` (in older browsers)
* `Number.prototype.toLocaleString()` (available in modern browsers)

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not provide the same level of consistency and control as `Intl.NumberFormat`.

Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString rev.3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString vs Used defined formatter`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Intl.NumberFormat

toLocalString

Used defined formatter

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString rev.3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString vs Used defined formatter

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Intl.NumberFormat

toLocalString

Used defined formatter

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString vs Used defined formatter`