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=629703" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Run details:
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/149.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser:
Chrome 149
Operating system:
Mac OS X 10.15.7
Device Platform:
Desktop
Date tested:
4 days ago
Test name
Executions per second
new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()
60008.3 Ops/sec
cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()
2403828.0 Ops/sec
new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts
60430.0 Ops/sec
cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts()
946197.1 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());