Benchmark: Intl.NumberFormat vs manual

Script Preparation code:

var formatter1 = new Intl.NumberFormat("en-US", {maximumFractionDigits: 2, minimumFractionDigits: 2});

Tests:

Intl.NumberFormat
formatter1.format(1e6 * Math.random())
manual
(1e6 * Math.random()).toLocaleString("en-US");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl.NumberFormat
manual

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 122 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Intl.NumberFormat	501187.4 Ops/sec
manual	660979.8 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 benchmarking test.

**What is tested?**

The benchmark tests two approaches for formatting numbers: using the `Intl.NumberFormat` API (also known as ICU, International Components for Unicode) and doing it manually without relying on this API.

**Options compared:**

1. **Intl.NumberFormat**: This approach uses the built-in JavaScript API to format numbers according to a specific locale (in this case, English United States).
2. **Manual**: This approach uses only basic arithmetic operations (multiplication, exponentiation, and concatenation) without relying on any specialized libraries or APIs.

**Pros and Cons:**

**Intl.NumberFormat:**

Pros:

* Faster execution time due to optimized C++ code and minimal overhead.
* Reduced chance of errors caused by manual formatting.
* Supports multiple locales and number formats (e.g., decimal separators, thousand separators).

Cons:

* Requires JavaScript runtime support for ICU, which can be slower than native code.
* May not perform as well on older browsers or devices with limited resources.

**Manual:**

Pros:

* Can be faster in cases where the format is known exactly (e.g., fixed number of decimal places).
* No reliance on external libraries, reducing overhead and potential errors.
* Can potentially run on older browsers or devices without ICU support.

Cons:

* More error-prone due to manual formatting and calculation.
* Less efficient for complex or locale-dependent formats.

**Library:**

`Intl.NumberFormat` uses the International Components for Unicode (ICU) library, which is a widely-used, open-source implementation of Unicode standards. The ICU library provides optimized C++ code for various tasks, including number formatting, date and time parsing, and language support. In this benchmark, ICU's `NumberFormat` API is used to format numbers according to the specified locale.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in this test. The test primarily focuses on comparing two different approaches for formatting numbers.

**Other alternatives:**

Alternative approaches could include:

* Using a library like moment.js for date and time manipulation.
* Employing other internationalization libraries (e.g., polyfill implementations of ICU).
* Exploring more advanced number formatting techniques, such as using regular expressions or custom parsing functions.

Related benchmarks:

Intl.NumberFormat vs manual (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.NumberFormat vs manual

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Intl.NumberFormat

manual

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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