Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Intl format without new
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
No cache vs With Cache
Created:
one year ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
FORMAT = { day: '2-digit', month: 'short', year: 'numeric' } formatter = undefined;
Tests:
No cache
const date = Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-AU', FORMAT).format(new Date())
With Cache
if (!formatter) { formatter = Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-AU', FORMAT); } const date = formatter.format(new Date())
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
No cache
With Cache
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 YaBrowser/24.4.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Yandex Browser 24 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=532432" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
No cache
36677.2 Ops/sec
With Cache
1260927.5 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net! The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for two test cases: "Intl format without new" and its variations with and without caching. Here's what each part measures: **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition is essentially a script that performs an operation, in this case, formatting a date using the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API. * The first part, `"Script Preparation Code": "FORMAT = { day: '2-digit', month: 'short', year: 'numeric' }\r\nformatter = undefined;"`, sets up a configuration object (`FORMAT`) for the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API. This ensures that the same formatting options are used consistently across runs. * The second part, `"Html Preparation Code": null`, indicates that no HTML preparation is required. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares two approaches: 1. **No Cache**: The first test case uses a simple variable assignment (`const date = Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-AU', FORMAT).format(new Date())`) without caching the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` instance. 2. **With Cache**: The second test case uses an `if-else` statement to check if the `formatter` variable is already defined, and if not, creates a new `Intl.DateTimeFormat` instance. **Pros and Cons** * **No Cache**: + Pros: Simple, straightforward approach with minimal overhead. + Cons: May incur more repeated calls to `Intl.DateTimeFormat`, potentially leading to slower performance. * **With Cache**: + Pros: Can reduce the number of repeated calls to `Intl.DateTimeFormat` by reusing the cached instance. + Cons: Requires additional logic for checking if the formatter is already defined, which may add some overhead. **Library and Purpose** The `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API is a built-in JavaScript library that provides support for internationalized text formatting. Its purpose is to enable developers to format dates, numbers, and other numeric values in a way that's culturally sensitive and consistent with regional preferences. In this benchmark, the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API is used to format dates according to specific formatting options defined in the `FORMAT` object. The library ensures that the formatted date strings are returned in a locale-specific manner (in this case, English-Australian). **Special JS Feature or Syntax** There doesn't appear to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or variations on this benchmark, consider the following: * **Using a caching mechanism**: Instead of using an `if-else` statement, you could use a caching library like LRU Cache to store and retrieve formatted date strings. * **Comparing other formatting options**: You could modify the benchmark to test different formatting options, such as `Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-US', FORMAT)` or `Intl.DateTimeFormat('fr-FR', FORMAT)`, to see how they impact performance. * **Adding more complexity**: You could introduce additional complexity by incorporating more complex formatting scenarios, such as handling multiple dates or dates with specific time zones. Keep in mind that the performance differences between these approaches may be subtle, and it's essential to consider the context and requirements of your specific use case when designing benchmarks.
Related benchmarks:
DateTimeFormat vs toLocaleDateString
DateTimeFormat vs toLocaleDateString 3
Intl format
NumberFormat
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?