Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
create date stirng test
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
11 vs 22
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
11
const millis = new Date().getTime() const times = []; let clone = millis; for (let i = 0; i <= 48; i++) { times[i] = new Date(clone); clone += 30 * 60000; } return times;
22
const nearestDate = new Date().getTime() const times = []; const clone = new Date(nearestDate); for (let i = 0; i <= 48; i++) { times[i] = clone; clone.setMinutes(clone.getMinutes() + 30); } return times;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
11
22
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark test cases and explain what's being tested, compared, and some pros/cons of different approaches. **Overview** The test case measures the performance of creating date strings in JavaScript. The test creates an array of dates by incrementing the initial time by 30 minutes (1800000 milliseconds) for each iteration. The benchmark compares two approaches: 1. **Cloning the `millis` variable**: This approach clones the `millis` variable using the `new Date()` constructor, increments it by 30 minutes in each iteration, and stores the result in an array. 2. **Cloning a new `Date` object from `nearestDate`**: This approach creates a new `Date` object from the `nearestDate` variable, increments its minutes by 30 in each iteration, and stores the result in an array. **Options Compared** The two approaches are compared to measure their performance in terms of execution speed. Pros/Cons: * **Cloning `millis` variable**: + Pros: Can be faster since it only creates a new reference to the original value. + Cons: Can lead to precision issues if not handled carefully, as increments can cause overflows or underflows. * **Cloning a new `Date` object from `nearestDate`**: + Pros: More precise and avoids potential overflows or underflows. + Cons: Creates a new `Date` object in each iteration, which can lead to performance issues if the increment is large. **Library Usage** None of the test cases use any external libraries. The code relies solely on built-in JavaScript features and constructors (e.g., `Date()`). **Special JS Features/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these test cases. They only employ basic JavaScript constructs, such as loops, variable assignments, and constructor calls. **Benchmark Results** The latest benchmark results show the execution speed for each test case: * Test Case 22 (Cloning a new `Date` object from `nearestDate`) has an Execution Per Second value of 112891.390625. * Test Case 11 (Cloning the `millis` variable) has an Execution Per Second value of 171275.546875. This indicates that the first approach is significantly slower than the second one, likely due to the precision issues and potential overflows when incrementing the `millis` variable. **Alternatives** Other approaches could be used to create date strings in JavaScript, such as: 1. Using a library like Moment.js or Luxon for date manipulation and formatting. 2. Employing a different algorithm for incrementing dates, such as using a timestamp or a fixed offset. 3. Optimizing the code by reducing the number of iterations or using more efficient data structures. However, these alternatives may not be as straightforward to implement and compare, and might require additional setup and configuration to ensure accurate results.
Related benchmarks:
Date clone test
Current Date Creation
Date() vs Date(YY,MM,DD,hh,mm)
Date vs Moment Same Day
Date comparison Date.now vs new Date
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?