Benchmark: epoch milliseconds to ISO string, precalculated numbers 3

Script Preparation code:

var seed = Date.now();

var twoDigits = [];

for(let i = 0; i<100; i++) {
	twoDigits.push(String(i).padStart(2, '0'));
}

var threeDigits = [];

for(let i = 0; i<1000; i++) {
	threeDigits.push(String(i).padStart(3, '0'));
}

function toISO1(x) {
    Number.isFinite(x);

    const time = new Date(x);
    
    const year = String(time.getUTCFullYear());
    const mo = twoDigits[time.getUTCMonth()+1];
    const da = twoDigits[time.getUTCDate()];
    const ho = twoDigits[time.getUTCHours()];
    const mi = twoDigits[time.getUTCMinutes()];
    const se = twoDigits[time.getUTCSeconds()];
    const mil = threeDigits[time.getUTCMilliseconds()];
    
    return String(year) + '-' + mo + '-' + da + 'T' + ho + ':' + mi + ':' + se + '.' + mil + 'Z';
}

function toISO2(x) {
	return new Date(x).toISOString();
}

Tests:

template strings and padding
var value = toISO1(seed);
toISOString()
var value = toISO2(seed);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
template strings and padding
toISOString()

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that describes the test to be performed. It contains the following information:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark.
* `Description`: A brief description of the benchmark.
* `Script Preparation Code`: The JavaScript code used to prepare for the benchmark. This code sets up some pre-calculated numbers and defines two functions: `toISO1` and `toISO2`.
	+ `toISO1(x)`: Converts an epoch time into an ISO string using a custom implementation with padding.
	+ `toISO2(x)`: Converts an epoch time into an ISO string using the built-in `toISOString()` method.
* `Html Preparation Code`: This field is empty, indicating that no HTML preparation code is required.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark defines two test cases:

1. **Template strings and padding**: This test case uses the `toISO1` function and measures the performance of using template strings with padding to format the ISO string.
2. **toISOString()**: This test case uses the `toISO2` function and measures the performance of using the built-in `toISOString()` method to convert epoch time to an ISO string.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. Using a custom implementation (`toISO1`) with padding, which involves manually formatting the ISO string.
2. Using the built-in `toISOString()` method, which is a more concise and efficient way to format the ISO string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Custom Implementation (toISO1)**:
	+ Pros: Allows for fine-grained control over formatting options and can be optimized for specific use cases.
	+ Cons: Can be slower and more complex than the built-in `toISOString()` method, especially for large datasets.
* **Built-in toISOString() Method**:
	+ Pros: Faster, more efficient, and widely supported across different browsers and platforms.
	+ Cons: Limited control over formatting options, which may not meet specific requirements.

**Library Used**

The `toISOString()` method uses the JavaScript Standard Library, specifically the Internationalized Date and Time API. This library provides a standardized way to format dates and times in an ISO-compatible format.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses a fixed seed value (`Date.now()`) to ensure reproducibility of the results.
* The use of padding with template strings can affect performance, especially for larger datasets. This benchmark measures the performance of using padding and not using it, allowing users to compare the two approaches.
* The `toISO1` function uses a custom implementation that may not be compatible with all browsers or platforms. In contrast, the built-in `toISOString()` method is widely supported across different environments.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for formatting ISO strings include:

* Using a third-party library like Moment.js
* Implementing a custom formatting solution using a framework like React or Angular
* Utilizing a browser-specific API, such as the `Date` object's `toISOString()` method in older browsers

These alternatives may offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, complexity, and compatibility.

Related benchmarks:

epoch milliseconds to ISO string, precalculated numbers 3 (version: 0)

A function that converts an epoch time into an ISO string

Comparing performance of: template strings and padding vs toISOString()

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

template strings and padding

toISOString()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):