Benchmark: new Date from UNIX timestamp vs ISO string

Tests:

Timestamp
new Date(1576610077000);
ISO string
new Date('2019-07-31T13:03:00.000Z');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Timestamp
ISO string

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/141.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 141 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Timestamp	40903092.0 Ops/sec
ISO string	10879831.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Understanding the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark measures the performance of creating a `Date` object from two different methods: a UNIX timestamp and an ISO string.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Timestamp**: This test case uses the following script to create a `Date` object:
   ```javascript
new Date(1576610077000);
```
   This is essentially converting a UNIX timestamp (in milliseconds) into a JavaScript `Date` object.

2. **ISO string**: This test case uses the following script to create a `Date` object:
   ```
new Date('2019-07-31T13:03:00.000Z');
```
   This converts an ISO-formatted date string (`YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ss.sssZ`) into a JavaScript `Date` object.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of these two approaches:

* **UNIX timestamp**: Converting a UNIX timestamp to a JavaScript `Date` object.
* **ISO string**: Converting an ISO-formatted date string to a JavaScript `Date` object.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

*   **UNIX timestamp**:
    *   **Pros**:
        *   Can be more straightforward, as it's a simple numerical conversion.
        *   Might be faster for large numbers of conversions, since it avoids the overhead of parsing an ISO-formatted string.
    *   **Cons**:
        *   May require more processing power to handle very large UNIX timestamps.

*   **ISO string**:
    *   **Pros**:
        *   More flexible and human-readable format.
        *   Easier to use, especially for date ranges or other complex formats.
    *   **Cons**:
        *   Can be slower due to the overhead of parsing the ISO-formatted string.

**Library Used**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the JSON. However, it's likely that JavaScript's built-in `Date` and `String` classes are being used for these conversions.

**Special JavaScript Feature or Syntax**

There doesn't appear to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being utilized beyond standard JavaScript object creation and parsing of date strings.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to create a similar benchmark, other alternatives might include:

*   Comparing performance with different `Date` constructor methods (e.g., `new Date(nanoTime)` or using the `Date.now()` method).
*   Using alternative libraries for working with dates, such as Moment.js or Luxon.
*   Comparing performance across different browsers or environments.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require modifications to your benchmark setup and could potentially introduce additional variables (e.g., library differences) that could impact the results.

Related benchmarks:

new Date from UNIX timestamp vs ISO string (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Timestamp vs ISO string

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Timestamp

ISO string

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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