Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
new Date from UNIX timestamp vs ISO string
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Timestamp vs ISO string
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
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>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Timestamp
ISO string
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
10 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
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=618742" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Timestamp
40.9M/s
ISO string
10.9M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Timestamp
40,903,092 Ops/sec
ISO string
10,879,831 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
**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 new Date from ISO string
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?