Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
toLocaleDateString()
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
toLocaleDateString() vs Intl.DateTimeFormat() vs Intl.DateTimeFormat() cached
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var date = new Date(); var intl = new Intl.DateTimeFormat(undefined, {weekday: 'short', day: 'numeric', month: 'short'});
Tests:
toLocaleDateString()
var str = date.toLocaleDateString(undefined, {weekday: 'short', day: 'numeric', month: 'short'});
Intl.DateTimeFormat()
var str2 = new Intl.DateTimeFormat(undefined, {weekday: 'short', day: 'numeric', month: 'short'}).format(date);
Intl.DateTimeFormat() cached
var str3 = intl.format(date);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
toLocaleDateString()
Intl.DateTimeFormat()
Intl.DateTimeFormat() cached
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Measuring the performance of different approaches to formatting dates in JavaScript. The benchmark tests three main options: 1. **toLocaleDateString()**: This method is part of the JavaScript `Date` object and uses the browser's locale settings to format the date. It's a simple and widely supported approach, but its performance can vary depending on the browser and locale. 2. **Intl.DateTimeFormat() without caching**: This method uses the Internationalization API to format dates according to a specific locale. Without caching, it creates a new instance of `Intl.DateTimeFormat` for each execution, which can lead to slower performance compared to caching. 3. **Intl.DateTimeFormat() with caching**: This method caches the formatted date instance, so subsequent executions use the cached result instead of recreating the format object. Pros and Cons: * **toLocaleDateString()**: + Pros: Simple, widely supported, and fast in most browsers. + Cons: May not produce consistent results across different locales and browsers. * **Intl.DateTimeFormat() without caching**: + Pros: More control over formatting options and locale settings. + Cons: Slower performance due to the creation of new instances. * **Intl.DateTimeFormat() with caching**: + Pros: Faster performance, as it reuses cached format objects. + Cons: Requires more memory to store the cache. The benchmark results show that: * `Intl.DateTimeFormat()` with caching is the fastest approach, with an average execution rate of 8890.87 executions per second. * `toLocaleDateString()` is the second-fastest option, with an average execution rate of 48130.21 executions per second. * `Intl.DateTimeFormat()` without caching is the slowest option, with an average execution rate of 8424.84 executions per second. The `Date` object's locale settings are used to determine the format options. For example, in the first benchmark definition, `undefined` is passed as the locale argument, which means the browser will use its default locale setting. The `Intl.DateTimeFormat()` method uses a specific locale, such as `'en-US'`, which determines the formatting options. Other alternatives include using other localization APIs or libraries that provide more fine-grained control over date formatting, but are likely to incur performance overhead.
Related benchmarks:
DateTimeFormat vs toLocaleDateString
DateTimeFormat vs toLocaleDateString 3
Caching the DateTimeFormatter
Intl.DateTimeFormat with and without init
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?