Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date JsonReviver
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
parseDate vs parseDate2
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var input = []; for (i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { const date = new Date(Math.random()); input.push(date.toString()); }
Tests:
parseDate
const result = input.map(x=>new Date(x));
parseDate2
const result = input.map(x=>new Date(x));
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
parseDate
parseDate2
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):
I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, library usage, special JavaScript features, and alternative approaches. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark is designed to measure how fast different browsers can parse a large array of date strings into Date objects. The input data consists of 100,000 random date strings created using the `Date` constructor. **Options Compared** There are two test cases: 1. "parseDate" 2. "parseDate2" Both test cases use the same benchmark definition: ```javascript const result = input.map(x => new Date(x)); ``` The difference lies in the actual execution code, which is not shown in the benchmark definition. This suggests that the browser's engine has optimized or implemented a specific date parsing strategy for each test case. **Pros and Cons** Using two separate test cases with identical benchmark definitions can be beneficial: * It allows for more accurate comparison of individual browser optimizations. * However, it may introduce additional complexity and require manual analysis to determine which changes are contributing to the performance differences. On the other hand, using a single test case might simplify the analysis but could mask performance variations due to different optimization strategies. **Library Usage** There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the use of `Date` constructor and `map()` function suggests that JavaScript's built-in Date parsing functionality is being tested. **Special JavaScript Features** There are no special JavaScript features explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. The focus appears to be on measuring browser performance when parsing a large array of date strings. **Alternative Approaches** Other alternatives for benchmarking JavaScript performance might include: * Using a custom-built library or framework for date parsing and comparing it against various browsers' engines. * Creating a synthetic workload that simulates real-world date-related tasks, such as handling timestamps in APIs or file system interactions. * Focusing on specific scenarios like parsing dates from different formats (e.g., ISO 8601) or handling edge cases. Keep in mind that the choice of alternative approach depends on the specific requirements and goals of the benchmarking effort.
Related benchmarks:
Date JsonReviver4
Date JsonReviver5
Date JsonReviver7
Date JsonReviver8
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?