Benchmark: rnawklndklasndklsandklsadsatewtew

Tests:

1
const options = { hour: '2-digit', minute: '2-digit', hour12: true, }; const millis = new Date().getTime(); const times = []; const clone = new Date(millis); for (let i = 0; i <= 48; i++) { times.push(clone.toLocaleTimeString(undefined, options)); clone.setMinutes(clone.getMinutes() + 30); }
2
const options = { hour: '2-digit', minute: '2-digit', hour12: true, }; const millis = new Date().getTime(); const timeCount = 48; const times = new Array(timeCount); const clone = new Date(millis); for (let i = 0; i <= timeCount; i++) { times[i] = clone.toLocaleTimeString(undefined, options); clone.setMinutes(clone.getMinutes() + 30); }
3
const options = { hour: '2-digit', minute: '2-digit', hour12: true, }; const millis = new Date().getTime(); const times = []; const date = new Date(millis); const minute = 1000 * 60 * 30 / 60_000; let i = 0; const len = Math.floor(1440 / minute); while (i <= len) { times[i] = date.toLocaleTimeString(undefined, options); date.setMinutes(date.getMinutes() + minute); i++; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2
3

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.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided benchmark is a simple test that measures how quickly different approaches can generate time strings in a specific format. The main task of the benchmark is to create an array of time strings, where each string represents the current time at 30-minute intervals for a period of 48 hours (or 1440 minutes).

**Options being compared:**

In this benchmark, there are three different approaches that generate time strings in the same format. The main options being compared are:

1. Using `toLocaleTimeString` with an options object:
```javascript
const times = [];
const clone = new Date(millis);
for (let i = 0; i <= 48; i++) {
  times.push(clone.toLocaleTimeString(undefined, options));
  clone.setMinutes(clone.getMinutes() + 30);
}
```
2. Using `toLocaleTimeString` with an options object and array indexing:
```javascript
const millis = new Date().getTime();
const timeCount = 48;
const times = new Array(timeCount);
const clone = new Date(millis);
for (let i = 0; i <= timeCount; i++) {
  times[i] = clone.toLocaleTimeString(undefined, options);
  clone.setMinutes(clone.getMinutes() + 30);
}
```
3. Using a different approach with array indexing and date manipulation:
```javascript
const millis = new Date().getTime();
const date = new Date(millis);
const minute = 1000 * 60 * 30 / 60_000;
let i = 0;
const len = Math.floor(1440 / minute);
while (i <= len) {
  times[i] = date.toLocaleTimeString(undefined, options);
  date.setMinutes(date.getMinutes() + minute);
  i++;
}
```
**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. Using `toLocaleTimeString` with an options object:
	* Pros: Easy to use, straightforward syntax.
	* Cons: May have performance implications due to the overhead of parsing the options object.
2. Using `toLocaleTimeString` with an options object and array indexing:
	* Pros: Similar ease of use as option 1, but with the added benefit of array indexing for faster iteration.
	* Cons: Requires manual array initialization, which may add overhead.
3. Using a different approach with array indexing and date manipulation:
	* Pros: More efficient iteration due to array indexing, but requires more manual date manipulation.
	* Cons: Syntax can be less readable due to the need for explicit looping and indexing.

**Library usage:**

None of the approaches rely on any external libraries besides JavaScript's built-in `Date` object. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may provide additional options or behavior when using `toLocaleTimeString`.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

There are no special JS features or syntax being used in this benchmark beyond what is provided by the standard library.

**Other alternatives:**

If you wanted to explore alternative approaches, here are a few ideas:

* Using `Intl.DateTimeFormat` instead of `toLocaleTimeString`
* Utilizing Web Workers for parallel execution
* Leveraging browser-specific APIs like `performance.now()` or `requestAnimationFrame`

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional complexity and performance trade-offs.

Related benchmarks:

rnawklndklasndklsandklsadsatewtew (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2 vs 3

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

3

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):