Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date from epock vs Date-string
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
Comparing performance of:
Using epoch vs Using string
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
Using epoch
new Date(1710497323016)
Using string
new Date('2024-03-15T10:07:04.581Z')
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Using epoch
Using string
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 122 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=512121" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Using epoch
7.2M/s
Using string
3.2M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Using epoch
7,241,632 Ops/sec
Using string
3,228,250 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach. **What is being tested?** The benchmark measures the performance difference between two ways to create `Date` objects in JavaScript: 1. Using the epoch time (a Unix timestamp) as a parameter: `new Date(1710497323016)` 2. Using a string representation of a date: `new Date('2024-03-15T10:07:04.581Z')` **Options being compared** The benchmark compares two approaches to create `Date` objects: 1. **Using epoch time**: This approach uses the `Date` constructor with an integer argument representing the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC. 2. **Using string representation**: This approach uses the `Date` constructor with a string parameter in the format `YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ss.SSSZ`, where `ZZ` indicates the time zone. **Pros and Cons of each approach** 1. **Using epoch time**: * Pros: Faster execution, as it avoids parsing and formatting strings. * Cons: Requires manual handling of milliseconds, which can be error-prone. 2. **Using string representation**: * Pros: Easier to read and write, as it uses a human-readable format. * Cons: Slower execution, as the browser needs to parse and format the string. **Library usage** There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's likely that the benchmark utilizes built-in JavaScript functions or libraries like jQuery (not explicitly mentioned) for parsing dates. **Special JS features or syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the provided JSON. The focus is on comparing different approaches to create `Date` objects. **Other alternatives** If you want to test other approaches, you could consider adding more benchmark definitions, such as: * Using a separate library like Moment.js for date manipulation. * Comparing performance using different time zones (e.g., UTC vs. local time zone). * Testing the impact of async operations on `Date` object creation. For example, an additional test case could be: ```json { "Benchmark Definition": "moment().format('YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ss.SSSZ')", "Test Name": "Using moment.js" } ``` This would involve adding the Moment.js library to the benchmark and comparing its performance against the existing approaches.
Related benchmarks
new Date().toISOString() vs new Date().toLocaleString()
new Date().getTimer() vs Date.parse()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?