Benchmark: Date JsonReviver3

Script Preparation code:

var input = [];

for (i = 2; i <= 100000; i++) {
    const date = new Date(Math.random()*1000);
  
    const value = i % 2 === 0 ? date.toISOString() : 'some random value';
    const key = i % 2 === 0 ? 'businessDate' : 'some random key';
  
    input.push({
        key,
        value
    });
  
    input.push({
        key: 'index',
        value: i
    });
}

Tests:

1
const result = input.map(x=>{ if (x.key === 'businessDate') { return new Date(x.value); } return x.value; });
2
const result = input.map(x=>{ if (typeof x.value === 'string') { const date = new Date(x.value); return isNaN(date) ? x.value : date; } return x.value; });
3
const result = input.map(x=>{ if (x.key.endsWith('Date')) { return new Date(x.value); } return x.value; });
4
const result = input.map(x=>{ if (typeof x.value === 'string' && /(\d{4})-(\d{2})-(\d{2})T(\d{2}):(\d{2}):(\d{2})/.test(x.value)) { return new Date(x.value); } return x.value; });
5
const result = input.map(x=>{ if (/(\d{4})-(\d{2})-(\d{2})T(\d{2}):(\d{2}):(\d{2})/.test(x.value)) { return new Date(x.value); } return x.value; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2
3
4
5

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The `Script Preparation Code` section creates an array of objects, each with a key (`key`) and a value (`value`). The value is either a string representing a date in ISO format or a random string. The `Html Preparation Code` section is empty, indicating that no HTML code is being prepared.

**Test Cases**

There are five test cases, each defining a different approach to convert the `value` field to a Date object if it's in ISO format. Let's analyze each one:

1. **Test Case 1**: Uses the ternary operator to check if the key is `'businessDate'`, and returns a new Date object if so.
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward.
	* Cons: May not work for other keys, like `'some random key'`.
2. **Test Case 2**: Checks if `x.value` is a string using `typeof`. Then, checks if the string matches the expected ISO format pattern using a regular expression.
	* Pros: More robust than Test Case 1, but still uses a simple approach.
	* Cons: The regular expression may be slow or inefficient for large inputs.
3. **Test Case 3**: Checks if the key ends with `'Date'`. If so, returns a new Date object.
	* Pros: Simple and effective.
	* Cons: May not work for other keys that end with `'Date'`, but are not supposed to be converted to dates.
4. **Test Case 4**: Uses a regular expression to match the ISO format pattern. Returns a new Date object if the string matches, or the original value otherwise.
	* Pros: More robust than Test Cases 1 and 3, with better support for edge cases.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the regular expression matching.
5. **Test Case 5**: Same as Test Case 4, but uses a different regular expression pattern.
	* Pros: Another way to match the ISO format pattern.
	* Cons: Similar to Test Case 4.

**Library Usage**

There is no library explicitly used in these test cases. However, the `Date` class and the `typeof` operator are built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None of these test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's covered in the basic JavaScript tutorial.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to compare these approaches, you could consider using:

* Using a library like Moment.js to parse dates.
* Implementing custom parsing logic for specific date formats.
* Using a more efficient data structure, like a `Map` or an object with a single property for the parsed dates.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely change the nature of the benchmark and may not be directly comparable to the original test cases.

Related benchmarks:

Date JsonReviver3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2 vs 3 vs 4 vs 5

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

3

4

5

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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