Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
luxon vs Date
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
js date vs luxon
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/luxon@1.26.0/build/global/luxon.min.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
window.ds = "2020-02-19T00:51:53.623839+00:00";
Tests:
js date
new Date(window.ds)
luxon
luxon.DateTime.fromISO(ds);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
js date
luxon
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
5 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:145.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/145.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 145 on Mac OS X 10.15
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=622170" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
js date
10367712.0 Ops/sec
luxon
783440.4 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
**Overview of the Benchmark** The provided JSON represents a benchmark test comparing two JavaScript libraries: `Date` (built-in JavaScript) and `Luxon`. The goal of this benchmark is to measure the performance difference between these two libraries when creating dates. **Script Preparation Code** The script preparation code is used to set up the environment for the benchmark. In this case, it sets a variable `ds` with a specific ISO 8601 date string: ```javascript window.ds = "2020-02-19T00:51:53.623839+00:00"; ``` This code is executed only once before running the benchmark tests. **HTML Preparation Code** The HTML preparation code includes a reference to the `Luxon` library: ```html <script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/luxon@1.26.0/build/global/luxon.min.js"></script> ``` This ensures that the `Luxon` library is available for use in the benchmark tests. **Test Cases** There are two test cases: 1. **"js date"`: This test case creates a new date object using the built-in `Date` constructor: ```javascript new Date(window.ds); ``` 2. **"luxon"`**: This test case uses the `Luxon` library to create a date object from an ISO 8601 date string: ```javascript luxon.DateTime.fromISO(ds); ``` **Performance Comparison** The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches: * Built-in `Date` constructor (JavaScript) * Luxon's `DateTime.fromISO` method **Pros and Cons:** **Built-in `Date` Constructor:** Pros: * Lightweight and efficient * Native JavaScript implementation, no external dependencies Cons: * May be slower due to parsing the ISO 8601 date string manually * Less robust than Luxon for handling date-related tasks **Luxon's `DateTime.fromISO` Method:** Pros: * Robust implementation with built-in support for ISO 8601 dates * Faster execution due to optimized parsing and formatting Cons: * External dependency on the Luxon library, which may introduce additional overhead * May have a steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with Luxon **Other Considerations:** * The benchmark results are reported in executions per second (EPS), which can be an indicator of performance. * The `RawUAString` field includes information about the browser and device used to run the benchmark, which can help analyze the environment's impact on performance. **Alternatives:** Other libraries or approaches that could be compared in a similar benchmark include: * Moment.js (another popular date library) * ISODate (a lightweight library for working with ISO 8601 dates) * A custom implementation using native JavaScript and optimized parsing techniques
Related benchmarks:
luxon3 vs datefns
luxon.fromSeconds(seconds) vs Date(seconds * 1000)
luxon.fromSeconds vs luxon.fromJSDate
luxon vs datefns adding
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?