Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
date parse
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
fast vs slow
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/moment.js/2.22.0/moment.min.js'></script>
Tests:
fast
new Date(parseInt('1603915652', 10) * 1000)
slow
new Date(moment(parseInt('1603915652', 10)).toDate())
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
fast
slow
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks! **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents two individual test cases for a benchmarking scenario. The tests aim to measure the performance difference between using native JavaScript `Date` objects versus utilizing the Moment.js library for date parsing. Specifically, the benchmarks compare the execution time it takes to parse a specific date string (in this case, January 1, 2022, at 00:00:00 UTC) in two different ways: 1. **Native JavaScript approach**: `new Date(parseInt('1603915652', 10) * 1000)` * This code directly creates a new `Date` object by converting the provided date string to an integer and then multiplying it by 1000 (to convert milliseconds to seconds). The resulting date is then passed to the `Date` constructor. 2. **Moment.js approach**: `new Date(moment(parseInt('1603915652', 10)).toDate())` * This code uses Moment.js to parse the date string, and then passes the result to the `Date` constructor. **Options compared** The two approaches compare the performance of: 1. Native JavaScript for date parsing 2. Using a dedicated library (Moment.js) for date parsing **Pros and Cons:** **Native JavaScript approach:** Pros: * No external dependencies or overhead * Simple, lightweight code Cons: * Might be slower due to the conversion process * Limited capabilities compared to dedicated libraries **Moment.js approach:** Pros: * Faster execution time (thanks to optimized parsing) * More comprehensive date formatting and manipulation capabilities Cons: * Requires an additional dependency (Moment.js) and potentially larger binary size * May introduce additional overhead or complexity for some use cases **Other considerations:** * The Moment.js library has a wide range of features, including support for multiple date formats, timezone handling, and more. * The `moment` function itself is a JavaScript wrapper around the underlying C++ code, which provides optimized performance. **Test case explanation** The provided test cases are straightforward: 1. **"fast"**: This benchmark uses the native JavaScript approach to parse the date string directly within the `Date` constructor. 2. **"slow"**: This benchmark uses Moment.js for date parsing before passing the result to the `Date` constructor. **Special JS feature or syntax:** None mentioned in this specific example, but it's worth noting that some modern JavaScript features like arrow functions, template literals, and async/await can also impact performance when used with microbenchmarks.
Related benchmarks:
Moment Parse vs JS Manual Parse
moment vs datefns format f
moment vs datefns format ba
moment vs datefns format f2
date-fns vs moment
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?