Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
date serialization
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
toISOString vs valueOf vs toString
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var date = new Date();
Tests:
toISOString
for (var i=0; i<1000; ++i) { date.toISOString(); }
valueOf
for (var i=0; i<1000; ++i) { date.valueOf(); }
toString
for (var i=0; i<1000; ++i) { date.toString(); }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
toISOString
valueOf
toString
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):
The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test case, specifically designed to measure the performance of different approaches for serializing a Date object. Let's break down what is being tested and the pros and cons of each approach. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition specifies three test cases: 1. `toISOString`: This test case measures the performance of converting a Date object to an ISO 8601 string format using the `toISOString()` method. 2. `valueOf`: This test case measures the performance of getting the numeric value representation of a Date object using the `valueOf()` method. 3. `toString`: This test case measures the performance of converting a Date object to a string format using the `toString()` method. **Options Compared** The three options being compared are: 1. **`toISOString()`**: This method converts the Date object to an ISO 8601 formatted string, which is a widely supported and standardized format. 2. **`valueOf()`**: This method returns the numeric value representation of the Date object as a number. 3. **`toString()`**: This method converts the Date object to a string in a format that depends on the locale settings. **Pros and Cons** 1. `toISOString()`: Pros: * Wide support across different browsers and platforms. * Human-readable format, but may be less efficient than numeric representation. 2. `valueOf()`: Pros: * Fastest execution time, as it only returns a number. * Less readable for humans, but suitable for numerical computations. Cons: * May not be supported by older browsers or platforms. 3. `toString()`: * Format depends on locale settings, which may lead to inconsistencies across different cultures. * Execution time may vary depending on the format. **Library and Purpose** The `Date` object is a built-in JavaScript object that represents a specific date and time value. The `toISOString()`, `valueOf()`, and `toString()` methods are part of this object, providing different ways to access or manipulate its contents. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being used in this benchmark test case. It only relies on the built-in `Date` object and standard JavaScript methods. **Other Alternatives** If you need to measure the performance of serializing a Date object, you can also consider using other libraries like Moment.js or Luxon. However, for simple cases like this one, the built-in JavaScript `Date` object is sufficient. The benchmark test case provides valuable insights into the performance characteristics of different approaches for serializing a Date object. By understanding these differences, developers can make informed decisions about which approach to use in their own applications.
Related benchmarks:
Date parsing
DateTimeFormat vs toLocaleDateString 3
toLocaleDateString_perf
Date parse vs clone
new Date vs date.setTime
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?