Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
new Date from UNIX timestamp (ms) vs new Date from ISO string
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
new Date vs Date.parse
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
new Date
new Date(1576610077000);
Date.parse
Date.parse('2019-07-31T13:03:00.000Z');
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
new Date
Date.parse
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 to understand what is being tested. **What is being measured?** The benchmark is measuring the performance of two different approaches to create a `Date` object in JavaScript: 1. **new Date(timestamp)**: This approach takes a Unix timestamp (in milliseconds) as an argument and creates a new `Date` object from it. 2. **Date.parse(isoString)**: This approach takes an ISO string (e.g., "2019-07-31T13:03:00.000Z") as an argument and parses it into a `Date` object. **Options compared** Two options are being compared: * **new Date(timestamp)** * **Date.parse(isoString)** The pros and cons of these approaches are: * **new Date(timestamp)**: + Pros: - Simple and straightforward way to create a `Date` object. - Fast execution, as it directly converts the timestamp to milliseconds. + Cons: - May not be accurate for large timestamps or edge cases (e.g., timestamp overflow). * **Date.parse(isoString)**: + Pros: - More flexible and forgiving than `new Date(timestamp)`, as it can handle various ISO string formats and edge cases. + Cons: - Slower execution, as it involves parsing the ISO string. **Library usage** In this benchmark, no specific JavaScript library is used beyond the built-in `Date` object and `String.prototype.localeCompare()` (not explicitly mentioned in the provided code). However, it's worth noting that some browsers might have additional libraries or extensions available for date-related operations. **Special JS feature or syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. It only focuses on comparing two simple approaches to create a `Date` object. **Other alternatives** If you want to compare other approaches to creating a `Date` object, some possible alternatives could be: * Using the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API * Utilizing the `moment.js` library (not part of the benchmark) * Implementing a custom date parsing function Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be directly comparable to the original two approaches being tested in this benchmark. Let me know if you have any further questions!
Related benchmarks:
new Date from UNIX timestamp vs new Date from ISO string
Date serialization+parsing of strings vs. numbers
new Date from UNIX timestamp vs ISO string
Intl.DateTimeFormat() vs Date().ISOString()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?