Benchmark: Using Intl NumberFormatter vs String manipulation

Tests:

Intl
new Intl.NumberFormat('en-US', { style: 'decimal', useGrouping: true, minimumFractionDigits: 0, maximumFractionDigits: 3, }).format('100000.234')
String
const value = '100000.234'; function decimalFormat(value) { // fix for rounding issues, see Mozilla docs on method toFixed() const normalizedValue = value * 10 ** 3; const formattedValue = normalizedValue.toFixed(0); return +formattedValue / 10 ** 3; } function formatThousandsSeparator(value) { // TODO: consider replacing this later with Intl.NumberFormat const parts = value.toString().split('.'); parts[0] = parts[0].replace(/\B(?=(\d{3})+(?!\d))/g, ','); return parts.join('.'); } decimalFormat(formatThousandsSeparator(value))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl
String

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 3 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined as a comparison between two approaches to format numbers:

1. Using `Intl.NumberFormatter` (the "Intl" test case)
2. String manipulation (the "String" test case)

**What are we comparing?**

We're comparing the performance of these two approaches in formatting a number with decimal places.

**Options being compared:**

* **Intl NumberFormatter**: This is a built-in JavaScript API that provides a standardized way to format numbers, including decimal places. It's designed to handle cultural and linguistic differences.
* **String manipulation**: This approach involves manually converting the number to a string, manipulating it to replace commas with thousand separators, and then parsing it back to a number.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **Intl NumberFormatter**:
	+ Pros: Robust, culture-aware, and well-maintained. It's designed to handle complex formatting rules.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of creating an instance and calling methods on it. Additionally, some features might not be available in older browsers or JavaScript engines.
* **String manipulation**:
	+ Pros: Lightweight and fast. It can be optimized for specific use cases.
	+ Cons: Requires manual handling of formatting rules, which can lead to errors and inconsistencies.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark uses a fictional `decimalFormat` function in the "String" test case. This is likely used to demonstrate the required formatting behavior.
* The `Intl.NumberFormatter` instance in the "Intl" test case has some configuration options set (e.g., `style='decimal'`, `useGrouping=true`). These settings might affect the performance and accuracy of the formatter.

**Library:**

The `Intl.NumberFormatter` library is a part of the JavaScript Standard Library, introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It provides a standardized way to format numbers according to cultural and linguistic conventions.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two approaches for formatting numbers.

Now that we've broken down the benchmark, let's talk about alternatives:

* **Other libraries**: There are other libraries available for handling internationalization and localization, such as ICU (International Components for Unicode) or moment.js. However, they might not be part of the standard JavaScript library.
* **Custom implementation**: Depending on the specific requirements, developers might choose to implement their own number formatting logic from scratch. This approach requires more effort but provides full control over the formatting rules.

In summary, this benchmark compares the performance of two approaches for formatting numbers: using `Intl.NumberFormatter` and string manipulation. It highlights the pros and cons of each approach and provides insights into the behavior of these methods in different scenarios.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/97.0.4692.99 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 97 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Intl	29760.8 Ops/sec
String	2020180.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Using Intl NumberFormatter vs String manipulation (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl vs String

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Intl

String

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 3 days ago):