Benchmark: Intl.NumberFormat vs existing way

Tests:

Intl.NumberFormat
var a = new Intl.NumberFormat([], {minimumFractionDigits: 2, useGrouping: false}).format(1234567.89); var z = Number(a);
Manually calculate
const a = 1234567.89; const t = Math.pow(10, 2 ?? 0); const z = Math.min( Math.floor(a * t) / t, 100 );

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl.NumberFormat
Manually calculate

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided benchmark tests two approaches for formatting numbers in JavaScript:

1. **Using `Intl.NumberFormat`**: This method uses the built-in internationalization API (`Intl`) to format numbers with specific settings, such as minimum fraction digits and grouping. The test case creates an instance of `Intl.NumberFormat`, sets its options, and then formats a number using this instance.
2. **Manual calculation**: This approach involves manually calculating the formatted value without relying on any built-in functions or APIs. In this test case, the number is multiplied by a power of 10 to shift the decimal point, then divided by that same power of 10, and finally capped at 100.

**Comparison of Approaches**

* **Performance**: The manual calculation approach may be faster in some cases because it avoids the overhead of creating an instance of `Intl.NumberFormat` and calling its methods. However, the built-in method is likely to be more efficient for large-scale applications that need to handle many numbers.
* **Readability and maintainability**: Using a built-in function like `Intl.NumberFormat` can make code easier to read and understand, especially when working with internationalization and formatting requirements. Manual calculation may lead to more error-prone and harder-to-maintain code.

**Library: Intl**

The `Intl` library is a part of the JavaScript API for internationalization (i18n). It provides functions for formatting numbers, dates, times, and other types of data according to specific locales and formatting rules. In this benchmark, `Intl.NumberFormat` is used to format a number with specific settings.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

* **Browser support**: The test results indicate that Chrome 114 performs better than using `Intl.NumberFormat`. However, it's essential to note that browser support for internationalization APIs can vary across different browsers and versions.
* **Platform dependence**: The test results suggest that the manual calculation approach might be faster on desktop platforms compared to other devices. This is likely due to differences in performance characteristics between desktop and mobile browsers.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to testing number formatting benchmarks could include:

1. Testing with different locales or languages using `Intl.NumberFormat`.
2. Comparing the performance of `Intl.NumberFormat` against other libraries or implementations, such as the ICU library.
3. Evaluating the impact of specific formatting options on performance, such as fractional digits or grouping.
4. Using a more comprehensive benchmarking framework that tests various aspects of JavaScript performance, including memory allocation and garbage collection.

By considering these alternative approaches, developers can gain a better understanding of how different methods affect the performance and maintainability of their code.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Intl.NumberFormat	72855.7 Ops/sec
Manually calculate	6004531.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Intl.NumberFormat vs existing way (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.NumberFormat vs Manually calculate

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Intl.NumberFormat

Manually calculate

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):