Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date parse performance
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
new Date vs Date.parse vs Parse from UnixTime milli vs Parse from ISO8601
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
new Date
new Date('01/01/2001');
Date.parse
Date.parse('01/01/2001');
Parse from UnixTime milli
Date.parse(1608055965727)
Parse from ISO8601
Date.parse("2020-12-15T18:14:28.953Z")
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (4)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
new Date
Date.parse
Parse from UnixTime milli
Parse from ISO8601
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 break down the provided benchmark and its test cases. **What is tested?** The provided benchmark tests the performance of three different methods to parse dates in JavaScript: `new Date()`, `Date.parse()`, and parsing from Unix time (`Date.parse(1608055965727)`), as well as parsing from ISO 8601 format (`"2020-12-15T18:14:28.953Z"`). **Options compared** The benchmark compares the performance of three different approaches: 1. `new Date()`: This method creates a new date object using a string in the format "MM/DD/YYYY". 2. `Date.parse()`: This method parses a string representing a date in various formats, including Unix time and ISO 8601. 3. Parsing from Unix time (`Date.parse(1608055965727)`): This method uses the `Date.parse()` method with a Unix timestamp as an argument. **Pros and cons of each approach** 1. `new Date()`: This approach is simple and easy to use, but it can be slow due to the string parsing overhead. 2. `Date.parse()`: This approach provides more flexibility than `new Date()`, as it can parse dates in various formats. However, its performance can vary depending on the input format and the browser's implementation. 3. Parsing from Unix time (`Date.parse(1608055965727)`): This approach is likely to be fast, as it uses a fixed-size timestamp that is easily computable. **Libraries and special JS features** There are no libraries mentioned in the provided benchmark definition or test cases. However, `Date` and `Date.parse()` are part of the built-in JavaScript API. **Special JS features** The only special feature used in this benchmark is the use of Unix timestamps (e.g., `1608055965727`). This is a way to represent a point in time as a number of milliseconds since the Unix epoch (January 1, 1970). **Other alternatives** There are alternative methods to parse dates in JavaScript: * Using regular expressions: You can write custom regular expressions to match specific date formats. * Using libraries like Moment.js or Luxon: These libraries provide more advanced date parsing and formatting capabilities. In terms of performance, `Date.parse()` is generally faster than using a regular expression or a library for simple date parsing. However, the choice of method depends on the specific use case and requirements. **Benchmark preparation code** The benchmark definition does not include any script preparation code. This means that the test cases are executed in their entirety without any additional setup or modifications. In general, when creating benchmarks, it's essential to ensure that the tests are representative of real-world scenarios and that the results can be compared across different browsers, versions, and hardware configurations.
Related benchmarks:
Date.parse vs new Date3
Date.parse vs new Date (ISO format)
Date.parse vs string date comparsion
Date.parse vs new Date with ISO 8601 format
Date.parse string vs new Date ms
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?