Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Run results for:
new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat
measure the perf impact of caching calls to new Intl.DateTimeFormat
Go to the benchmark
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=626659" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Run details:
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/146.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/146.0.0.0
Browser:
Chrome 146
Operating system:
Windows
Device Platform:
Desktop
Date tested:
one month ago
Test name
Executions per second
new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()
23942.9 Ops/sec
cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()
976680.9 Ops/sec
new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts
24981.2 Ops/sec
cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts()
388364.4 Ops/sec
Script Preparation code:
const TWO_DIGIT = '2-digit'; var options = { month: TWO_DIGIT, year: 'numeric', day: TWO_DIGIT, hour: TWO_DIGIT, hour12: false, minute: TWO_DIGIT, second: TWO_DIGIT, } var cached = new Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-US', options);
Tests:
new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()
new Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-US', options).format(new Date());
cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()
cached.format(new Date());
new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts
new Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-US', options).formatToParts(new Date());
cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts()
cached.formatToParts(new Date());