Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Intl.DateFormat with/without caching
(version: 1)
Comparing performance of:
caching vs no caching
Created:
5 months ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
caching
window.a = window.a || new Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-US', { year: 'numeric', month: 'long', day: 'numeric' }); for (let i = 10000; i< 10100; i++) { window.a.format(new Date()) }
no caching
for (let i = 10000; i< 10100; i++) { new Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-US', { year: 'numeric', month: 'long', day: 'numeric' }).format(new Date()) }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
caching
no caching
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
5 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/142.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 142 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
Test name
Executions per second
caching
21683.5 Ops/sec
no caching
443.4 Ops/sec
Related benchmarks:
new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached
new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat
Should you cache Intl.DateTimeFormat?
Should you cache Intl.DateTimeFormat (simple key)?
Intl format
Intl format without new
new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat vs date method
new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat vs custom
new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs no new Intl.DateTimeFormat
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?