Benchmark: Intl.DateTimeFormat performance edit

Script Preparation code:

var now = new Date()
var targetHour = 9 
var timezone = 'America/Toronto'

Tests:

Using Intl.DateTimeFormat
const formatter = new Intl.DateTimeFormat(undefined, { timeZone: timezone, hour: 'numeric', minute: 'numeric', second: 'numeric', }) const currentTime = formatter.format(now) // Extract the hour part and convert it to a number const currentHour = parseInt(currentTime.split(':')[0], 10)
using Date
const currentTime = now.toLocaleTimeString('en-US', { timeZone: timezone, hour12: false }); // Extract the hour part and convert it to a number const currentHour = parseInt(currentTime.split(':')[0], 10);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Using Intl.DateTimeFormat
using Date

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of two different approaches to extract the hour part from a date string in JavaScript.

**Approach 1: Using `Intl.DateTimeFormat`**

This approach uses the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API to format the current date into a string, and then extracts the hour part using string manipulation.

**Approach 2: Using `Date` object's `toLocaleTimeString` method**

This approach uses the `Date` object's `toLocaleTimeString` method to get the current time as a string in a specific locale (in this case, 'en-US'), and then extracts the hour part using string manipulation.

**Options Compared**

The two approaches are compared in terms of their execution speed. The benchmark measures how many executions per second each approach can handle on a specific device platform (Desktop) with a specific operating system (Mac OS X 10.15.7).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Using `Intl.DateTimeFormat`**
	+ Pros:
		- More robust and flexible formatting options.
		- Supports multiple languages and locales.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower due to the overhead of internationalization and localization.
		- Requires more memory and CPU resources.
* **Using `Date` object's `toLocaleTimeString` method**
	+ Pros:
		- Faster execution speed due to the optimized implementation.
		- Uses less memory and CPU resources.
	+ Cons:
		- Less flexible formatting options.
		- May not support all languages and locales.

**Library Used**

The `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API is a built-in JavaScript library that provides internationalization and localization functionality. It allows developers to format dates, numbers, and other types of data in a specific locale and format.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

Neither of the approaches uses any special JavaScript features or syntax that would be unfamiliar to most software engineers.

**Other Alternatives**

There are other ways to extract the hour part from a date string in JavaScript, such as:

* Using regular expressions: This approach involves using a regular expression to match and extract the hour part from the date string.
* Using a library like Moment.js: This approach involves using a third-party library that provides additional functionality for working with dates and times.

However, these alternatives are not typically used in production code due to performance concerns and the fact that they may introduce additional dependencies.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Using Intl.DateTimeFormat	8973.9 Ops/sec
using Date	9269.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Intl.DateTimeFormat performance edit (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Using Intl.DateTimeFormat vs using Date

Created: 11 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Using Intl.DateTimeFormat

using Date

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):