Benchmark: new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached

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
new Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-US', options).format(new Date());
cached Intl.DateTimeFormat
cached.format(new Date());

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new Intl.DateTimeFormat
cached Intl.DateTimeFormat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

ⓘ Get performance results from real users on your website with Request Metrics.

Website Performance Monitoring by Request Metrics

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/98.0.4758.102 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 98 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
new Intl.DateTimeFormat	6559.6 Ops/sec
cached Intl.DateTimeFormat	219446.1 Ops/sec

new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached (version: 0)

measure the perf impact of caching calls to new Intl.DateTimeFormat

Comparing performance of: new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

new Intl.DateTimeFormat

cached Intl.DateTimeFormat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A