Benchmark: qweqweqweqwe - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var options = {
  year: 'numeric', month: 'numeric', day: 'numeric',
  hour: 'numeric', minute: 'numeric', second: 'numeric',
  hour12: false,
  fractionalSecondDigits: 3,
}

Tests:

Intl.DateTimeFormat()
var formatter = new Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-US', options); var date = new Date(); for(let i = 0; i < 1000; i++){ formatter.format(date); }
Date().toLocaleString()
var date = new Date(); for(let i = 0; i < 1000; i++){ date.toLocaleString("en-US", options) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl.DateTimeFormat()
Date().toLocaleString()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Intl.DateTimeFormat()	452.6 Ops/sec
Date().toLocaleString()	14.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons of those approaches, library usage, special JS features or syntax, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark tests two JavaScript methods for formatting dates: `Intl.DateTimeFormat()` and `Date().toLocaleString()`. The goal is to determine which method is faster and more efficient.

**Options Comparison**

In the provided benchmark definition JSON, options are compared using the `Intl.DateTimeFormat()` function. Specifically:

* `year`, `month`, `day`, `hour`, `minute`, and `second` formats are used.
* `hour12` option is set to `false`.
* `fractionalSecondDigits` option is set to 3.

These options control how the date values are formatted in the output string. The pros of using these specific options include:

* Consistency in formatting, making it easier for users to understand the data.
* Human-readable format, which can be more readable than a plain numeric representation.

However, there may be some cons:

* Increased complexity, potentially impacting performance.
* Dependence on the chosen locale and settings.

**Library Usage**

In both test cases, the `Intl.DateTimeFormat()` function is used to format dates. This library is part of the JavaScript standard library (ECMAScript) and provides internationalization features for date formatting.

The purpose of this library is to provide a standardized way to format dates in a locale-agnostic manner, allowing users to switch between different languages and regions without affecting the formatting. The `Intl.DateTimeFormat()` function takes into account the locale and settings specified by the user (in this case, using English as the primary language).

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are explicitly used in these test cases.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The script preparation code for each benchmark definition includes setting up an `Intl.DateTimeFormat()` object with the specified options. This code is executed before running the tests to ensure consistent results.

**Alternative Benchmarks**

Other alternatives could include:

* Using a different library or framework that provides internationalization features, such as Moment.js.
* Implementing custom date formatting using JavaScript's native methods (e.g., `Date()` and string manipulation).
* Testing with different locale settings or languages to evaluate the impact on performance.

Keep in mind that each alternative would require significant changes to the benchmark setup and test cases.

Related benchmarks:

qweqweqweqwe (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.DateTimeFormat() vs Date().toLocaleString()

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Intl.DateTimeFormat()

Date().toLocaleString()

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):