Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date Test speed parse iso vs ts
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Parse ISO vs Parse TS
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Parse ISO
new Date("2021-01-25T17:26:27Z")
Parse TS
new Date(1611595587000)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Parse ISO
Parse TS
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
29 days ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/147.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 147 on Linux
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=627644" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
Parse ISO
7429068.5 Ops/sec
Parse TS
30949854.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The MeasureThat.net website allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark is designed to measure the speed of parsing date strings in different formats: ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and TS (short for "Unix Time", which represents the number of seconds since January 1, 1970). **Options Being Compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **ISO**: This option tests the performance of parsing a date string in the ISO format, which is `YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ`. For example: `new Date("2021-01-25T17:26:27Z")`. 2. **TS**: This option tests the performance of parsing a date string in Unix Time format, represented as a number of seconds since January 1, 1970. For example: `new Date(1611595587000)`. **Pros and Cons** * **ISO Format**: + Pros: Widely used and understood format, especially for international dates. + Cons: May require additional parsing steps to extract the individual date components (year, month, day, hour, minute, second). * **TS Format**: + Pros: Simple and compact representation of a date and time, suitable for many use cases. + Cons: Limited to Unix Time format, which may not be suitable for all applications. **Library and Special JS Feature** Neither of the benchmark options uses any libraries or special JavaScript features that would require additional explanation. The parsing is a basic operation that can be performed using the built-in `Date` constructor in JavaScript. **Other Alternatives** If you were to compare these two options, other alternatives might include: * **RFC 3339**: Another widely used date and time format, which includes many variants of ISO 8601. * **JavaScript Date API extensions**: Some modern JavaScript libraries or frameworks may provide additional date parsing capabilities beyond the built-in `Date` constructor. **Benchmark Preparation Code** The provided benchmark preparation code is empty, suggesting that the user wants to focus solely on comparing the performance of the two options being tested. If you wanted to add more complexity to your benchmark, you could include some basic setup or prep work in this section, such as initializing variables or creating a sample dataset. **Individual Test Cases** The individual test cases are designed to measure the execution speed of parsing each date string format. By comparing these results across different browsers and devices, users can gain insights into how their application's performance will be affected by the choice of date format.
Related benchmarks:
new Date from UNIX timestamp vs new Date from ISO string
Date Test speed parse iso vs ts1
new Date from UNIX timestamp (ms) vs new Date from ISO string
Date.parse vs new Date with ISO 8601 format
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?