Benchmark: Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString vs RegExp

Tests:

Intl.NumberFormat
var a = new Intl.NumberFormat("en-US").format("10000");
toLocalString
var a = "10000".toLocaleString("en-US");
RegExp
"10000".toString().replace(/(\d)(?=(\d{3})+(?!\d))/g, '$1,')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl.NumberFormat
toLocalString
RegExp

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is tested, the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test measures the performance of three different approaches for formatting numbers:

1. `Intl.NumberFormat` (International Number Format)
2. `toLocalString`
3. Using a regular expression (`RegExp`) to format numbers with commas.

**Options Compared**

* `Intl.NumberFormat`: Uses the Internationalization API to format numbers according to the specified locale.
	+ Pros:
		- Handles different locales and cultures.
		- More robust and accurate formatting.
		- Can be used for currency, decimal, or scientific notation formats.
	+ Cons:
		- May have a slight performance overhead due to its complex logic.
* `toLocalString`: Uses the built-in `toLocaleString` method to format numbers according to the current locale.
	+ Pros:
		- Simple and fast implementation.
		- Works well for most use cases.
	+ Cons:
		- May not handle all edge cases or locales correctly.
		- Less flexible than `Intl.NumberFormat`.
* `RegExp`: Uses a regular expression to format numbers with commas.
	+ Pros:
		- Fast and lightweight implementation.
		- Works well for simple number formatting tasks.

**Library: Intl.NumberFormat**

The `Intl.NumberFormat` library is part of the JavaScript Internationalization API. It allows you to format numbers according to the specified locale, handling different cultures and languages. The library provides various formats, such as currency, decimal, scientific notation, and more.

In this benchmark, `Intl.NumberFormat` is used to format a number with commas in English (US) locale. The resulting string is then compared to other formats for performance.

**Special JavaScript Feature/ Syntax: none**

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

**Other Alternatives**

If you need more advanced formatting options, consider using the following alternatives:

* `Intl.NumberFormat`: Provides more flexible and robust formatting options than the built-in methods.
* `NumberFormat` library (third-party): Offers a lightweight alternative to `Intl.NumberFormat` with similar features.
* Custom implementation: You can also implement your own number formatting logic using JavaScript, which may provide better performance for very simple cases.

Keep in mind that each approach has its pros and cons, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Intl.NumberFormat	19982.7 Ops/sec
toLocalString	9925655.0 Ops/sec
RegExp	425046.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString vs RegExp (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString vs RegExp

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Intl.NumberFormat

toLocalString

RegExp

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):