Benchmark: ewhurtjytitut - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

1
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++; }
2
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.push(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

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 and its options, explaining what's being tested, the pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of JavaScript code that generates and formats dates in 2-digit hour and minute formats. The test case consists of two individual tests:

1. Test 1: Pushes elements to an array instead of assigning them.
2. Test 2: Assigns values directly to an array element.

**Library Used**

The `toLocaleTimeString` function is used, which is part of the JavaScript Standard Library. This library provides methods for formatting dates and times according to a specified format.

**Options Compared**

In both test cases, the options object is passed to `toLocaleTimeString`. The key options being compared are:

* `hour`: specifies the hour format (2-digit or 12-hour)
* `minute`: specifies the minute format (2-digit or auto-determine)

The pros and cons of each approach:

**Pushing Elements to an Array**

Pros:

* Can be more memory-efficient, as it avoids creating a new object.
* May lead to better cache locality.

Cons:

* Requires more operations, as each push operation can cause multiple function calls.

**Assigning Values Directly**

Pros:

* Simplifies the code and reduces overhead from push operations.
* Reduces the risk of memory issues due to improper array management.

Cons:

* May result in slower performance, especially if the array grows large.

**Other Considerations**

The test case uses a fixed date range (30 minutes) and iterates over it using a while loop. This can lead to:

* Warm-up effects: The first few iterations might be slower due to the time it takes for the browser's JavaScript engine to warm up.
* Inaccurate results: If the loop is not perfectly synchronized with the actual date changes, the results might be skewed.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no specific JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code adheres to standard JavaScript practices and does not exploit any advanced features.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for measuring performance could include:

* Using a profiling tool like Chrome DevTools or Node.js Inspector
* Implementing a microbenchmarking library like Benchmark.js or Micro-Benchmark
* Measuring performance using an external benchmarking framework, such as Benchmark

However, MeasureThat.net provides a simple and convenient way to compare the performance of small code snippets across different browsers and environments.

Related benchmarks:

ewhurtjytitut (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

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):