Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date Creation awertwerewrqw
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
int vs string
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
int
new Date(1716924935);
string
new Date("2024-05-28 19:27:25.953574+00")
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
int
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/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.2.1 Safari/605.1.15
Browser/OS:
Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=525289" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
int
17.3M/s
string
16.7M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
int
17,333,756 Ops/sec
string
16,719,820 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down what is being tested in this benchmark and the options being compared. **Benchmark Definition:** The benchmark definition is a JSON object that represents a JavaScript microbenchmark. In this case, there are two benchmarks defined: 1. `new Date(1716924935);`: This creates a new `Date` object with a specific timestamp (May 28, 2019, 19:27:25 UTC). The goal of this benchmark is to measure the performance of creating a new `Date` object. 2. `new Date(\"2024-05-28 19:27:25.953574+00\")`: This creates a new `Date` object from a string representation of a date and time, similar to the first benchmark but with an additional millisecond precision. **Options being compared:** In this case, there are two options being compared: 1. Creating a new `Date` object using an integer timestamp (option 1). 2. Creating a new `Date` object from a string representation of a date and time (option 2). **Pros and cons of each approach:** 1. **Integer timestamp:** This method is likely to be faster because it avoids the overhead of parsing a string. However, this approach requires knowledge of the timestamp format used by the `Date` constructor. 2. **String representation:** This method provides more flexibility and can handle dates in different formats or time zones. However, it may be slower due to the parsing overhead. **Library usage:** There is no specific library being used in these benchmarks. The `Date` constructor is a built-in JavaScript function that creates new date objects. **Special JS feature or syntax:** The benchmark uses the `+00` notation in the timestamp string, which represents UTC time zone offset. This notation is not specific to any particular JavaScript version or implementation. **Other considerations:** 1. **Platform and browser differences:** The benchmark results show that different browsers (in this case, Safari) produce different performance for each option. 2. **Device platform and OS:** The results also vary across different device platforms and operating systems. 3. **Execution frequency:** The number of executions per second is a key metric in this benchmark. **Alternatives:** Other alternatives to creating date objects include: 1. Using the `Date.now()` method, which returns the current timestamp in milliseconds. 2. Utilizing external libraries like Moment.js or Luxon, which provide more advanced date and time functionality. Keep in mind that these alternative approaches might not be as relevant for this specific benchmark, as it focuses on creating a new `Date` object from a raw value.
Related benchmarks
luxon-v-Intl format, luxon-v-Date native parse
Date creation speed
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?