Benchmark: Number.toLocaleString vs Intl.NumberFormat vs Regex

Tests:

Intl.NumberFormat
const currencyPlayNumber = 1; const translatedString = new Intl.NumberFormat(undefined, { style: 'currency', currency: 'RUB', }).format(currencyPlayNumber);
Number.toLocaleString
const currencyPlayNumber = 1; const translatedString = currencyPlayNumber.toLocaleString(undefined, { style: 'currency', currency: 'RUB', })
Regex
const currencyPlayNumber = 1; const translatedString = `${currencyPlayNumber}`.replace(/\B(?=(\d{3})+(?!\d))/g, ',');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl.NumberFormat
Number.toLocaleString
Regex

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches to format a currency string: `Intl.NumberFormat`, `Number.toLocaleString`, and regular expression (Regex). The goal is to determine which approach is the most efficient.

**Options Compared**

1. **Intl.NumberFormat**: This method uses the Internationalization API to format numbers according to a specific locale, in this case, Russian (RUB).
2. **Number.toLocaleString**: This method uses the `toLocaleString` method of the JavaScript number object to format numbers according to a specific locale.
3. **Regex**: This method uses regular expressions to manually replace digits with commas, creating a currency string.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Intl.NumberFormat**:
	+ Pros: widely supported by modern browsers, flexible locale options, handles formatting for multiple currencies and number formats.
	+ Cons: may have performance overhead due to internationalization considerations.
* **Number.toLocaleString**:
	+ Pros: widely supported by modern browsers, efficient performance, simple implementation.
	+ Cons: limited locale options compared to `Intl.NumberFormat`.
* **Regex**:
	+ Pros: lightweight and flexible, can handle formatting for multiple currencies and number formats.
	+ Cons: requires manual implementation, potential performance overhead due to string manipulation.

**Library/Technique Used**

None of the above methods rely on external libraries. However, the use of internationalization APIs (`Intl.NumberFormat`) may be considered a technique or library in itself, as it provides a standardized way to handle formatting for different locales and currencies.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in these benchmarks.

**Other Alternatives**

If none of the above methods are suitable, alternative approaches could include:

1. Using a dedicated JavaScript library for internationalization, such as Moment.js.
2. Implementing custom formatting logic using a template engine like Handlebars.
3. Using a CSS-based approach to format numbers, such as by manipulating the HTML element's style attribute.

These alternatives may offer better performance or flexibility but also introduce additional complexity and overhead.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: yesterday)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:132.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/132.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 132 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Intl.NumberFormat	52504.1 Ops/sec
Number.toLocaleString	52357.9 Ops/sec
Regex	29103990.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Number.toLocaleString vs Intl.NumberFormat vs Regex (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.NumberFormat vs Number.toLocaleString vs Regex

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Intl.NumberFormat

Number.toLocaleString

Regex

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):