Benchmark: new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat vs date method

new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat vs date method (version: 0)

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

Comparing performance of: new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format() vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format() vs new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts() vs date methods

Created: 5 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

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

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()
cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()
new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts
cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts()
date methods

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:131.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/131.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()	10067.6 Ops/sec
cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()	320475.2 Ops/sec
new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts	9890.0 Ops/sec
cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts()	197154.5 Ops/sec
date methods	10420.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance impact of caching calls to `Intl.DateTimeFormat` in JavaScript. Specifically, it compares the following three approaches:

1. Creating a new `Intl.DateTimeFormat` instance with specific options.
2. Caching this instance to avoid creating a new one on subsequent calls.
3. Using the `date` method without any caching.

**Options Comparison**

The benchmark tests different options for formatting dates using `Intl.DateTimeFormat`. The options used are:

* `month`: Format month as a two-digit number (e.g., "02" instead of "February").
* `year`: Include year in the output.
* `day`: Format day of the month as a two-digit number.
* `hour`: Include hour in the output, with 12-hour format disabled.
* `minute` and `second`: Include minutes and seconds in the output.

The benchmark tests these options individually and also combines them to create a complete date string (e.g., "02/2023 14:30").

**Caching**

The caching approach uses an instance of `Intl.DateTimeFormat` with the specified options, stored in a variable called `cached`. This instance is then used to format dates on subsequent calls using the `format()` and `formatToParts()` methods. The idea is that creating a new instance of `Intl.DateTimeFormat` would be expensive, but caching it can reduce overhead.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Caching**: Pros:
	+ Reduces creation time for a new `Intl.DateTimeFormat` instance.
	+ Can improve performance by avoiding repeated calls to the formatting method.
* Cons:
	+ May lead to slower execution times if the cached instance is not used frequently enough.
	+ Can cause issues with outdated options or locale changes.

**date method**

The date method uses the built-in `toLocaleString()` method of the `Date` object, without any caching. This approach relies on the browser's default formatting settings.

Pros:

* Simple and lightweight implementation.
* Does not require creating an instance of `Intl.DateTimeFormat`.

Cons:

* May not provide the same level of customization as using `Intl.DateTimeFormat`.
* Can be slower due to the overhead of calling `toLocaleString()`.

**Library: Intl.DateTimeFormat**

`Intl.DateTimeFormat` is a part of the Internationalization API in JavaScript, which provides methods for formatting dates and numbers according to specific locales. The library takes options to customize the output format.

The caching approach uses this library to store the formatted date string in the `cached` instance.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark does not explicitly mention any special JavaScript features or syntax. However, it relies on the Internationalization API and caching, which may be considered advanced topics.

Now that we've broken down the benchmark, let's consider alternative approaches:

1. **Using a different formatting library**: There are other libraries available for formatting dates, such as Moment.js or Luxon. These alternatives might offer improved performance or customization options.
2. **Optimizing caching**: If you're concerned about the overhead of caching `Intl.DateTimeFormat`, you could explore ways to improve cache efficiency, such as using a WeakMap to store cached instances.
3. **Using a different approach for date formatting**: Instead of relying on `Intl.DateTimeFormat` or `toLocaleString()`, you could consider using other methods, such as manipulating the Date object directly or using a dedicated date formatting library.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might come with trade-offs in terms of performance, customization, or complexity.

Related benchmarks:

new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat vs date method (version: 0)

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

Comparing performance of: new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format() vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format() vs new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts() vs date methods

Created: 5 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()

cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()

new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts

cached Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts()

date methods

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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