Benchmark: Intl format - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

FORMAT = { day: '2-digit', month: 'short', year: 'numeric' }
formatter = undefined;

Tests:

No cache
const date = new Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-AU', FORMAT).format(new Date())
With Cache
if (!formatter) { formatter = new Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-AU', FORMAT); } const date = formatter.format(new Date())

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
No cache
With Cache

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 13 hours ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:151.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/151.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 151 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
No cache	39000.1 Ops/sec
With Cache	1751203.0 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 benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API, specifically when using caching to improve performance.

The script preparation code defines a constant `FORMAT` that specifies the formatting options for the date: day in 2-digit format, month in short format, and year in numeric format. The `formatter` variable is initialized as undefined.

**Script Preparation Code**

```javascript
FORMAT = { day: '2-digit', month: 'short', year: 'numeric' }
formatter = undefined;
```

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **No Cache**: This option tests the performance of the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API without caching the formatter.
2. **With Cache**: This option tests the performance of the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API with caching the formatter.

**Pros and Cons**

**No Cache**

Pros:

* More accurate representation of real-world use cases, where caching is not enabled.
* May reveal differences in caching behavior between browsers or versions.

Cons:

* Can be slower due to the overhead of creating a new formatter instance on every execution.

**With Cache**

Pros:

* Can provide better performance by reusing the same formatter instance across multiple executions.
* Is more common in real-world applications, where caching is enabled.

Cons:

* May not accurately represent the actual behavior of the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API, as caching can affect results.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark uses a simple date formatting scenario to isolate the performance impact of caching. The use of `new Date()` creates a new date object on each execution, which can also impact performance.

**Library and Purpose**

In this case, there is no specific library being tested. However, it's worth noting that the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API is part of the Internationalization API in JavaScript, which provides support for formatting dates, numbers, and other types of data according to the conventions of different languages and regions.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no special JS feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The code is straightforward and uses standard JavaScript features.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to modify this benchmark, here are some alternative approaches:

1. **Test caching behavior on multiple browsers**: Compare the performance of the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API with caching across different browsers.
2. **Use a larger dataset**: Increase the number of date objects being formatted to simulate real-world workloads.
3. **Test with different formatting options**: Modify the `FORMAT` constant to test the impact of changing formatting options on performance.

By modifying the benchmark, you can gain more insight into the performance characteristics of the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API and how caching affects its behavior.

Related benchmarks:

Intl format (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: No cache vs With Cache

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

No cache

With Cache

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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