Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
tztest
(version: 0)
timezone tests
Comparing performance of:
passthrough vs moment(ts).tz(tz) vs moment(ts, tz) vs luxon
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/moment.js/2.24.0/moment.min.js"></script> <script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/moment-timezone/0.5.23/moment-timezone.min.js"></script> <script src="https://moment.github.io/luxon/global/luxon.min.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
const ts = "2019-01-30T18:02:15.719Z"; const timezone = "UTC"; const momentFormat = 'YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ss Z'; const luxonFormat = 'yyyy-LL-dd\'T\'HH:mm:ss ZZ';
Tests:
passthrough
const ts = "2019-01-30T18:02:15.719Z"; const timezone = "UTC"; const momentFormat = 'YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ss Z'; const luxonFormat = 'yyyy-LL-dd\'T\'HH:mm:ss ZZ'; return moment(ts).format(momentFormat);
moment(ts).tz(tz)
const ts = "2019-01-30T18:02:15.719Z"; const timezone = "UTC"; const momentFormat = 'YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ss Z'; const luxonFormat = 'yyyy-LL-dd\'T\'HH:mm:ss ZZ'; return moment(ts).tz(timezone).format(momentFormat);
moment(ts, tz)
const ts = "2019-01-30T18:02:15.719Z"; const timezone = "UTC"; const momentFormat = 'YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ss Z'; const luxonFormat = 'yyyy-LL-dd\'T\'HH:mm:ss ZZ'; return moment.tz(ts, timezone).format(momentFormat);
luxon
const ts = "2019-01-30T18:02:15.719Z"; const timezone = "UTC"; const momentFormat = 'YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ss Z'; const luxonFormat = 'yyyy-LL-dd\'T\'HH:mm:ss ZZ'; return luxon.DateTime.fromISO(ts).setZone(timezone).toFormat(luxonFormat);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (4)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
passthrough
moment(ts).tz(tz)
moment(ts, tz)
luxon
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):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks. **Benchmark Overview** The provided benchmark definition and test cases measure the performance of three libraries: Moment.js, Luxon, and a custom implementation. The tests focus on parsing and formatting dates with time zones. **Moment.js** Moment.js is a popular JavaScript date library that provides a simple way to work with dates. In this benchmark, Moment.js is used for both date parsing and formatting. * Option 1: `moment(ts).format(momentFormat)` - This option uses the `format()` method of Moment.js to parse the input string `ts` and format it according to the specified format `momentFormat`. + Pros: Easy to use, widely adopted, and well-documented. + Cons: Can be slower than native JavaScript implementations due to its overhead. * Option 2: `moment(ts).tz(timezone).format(momentFormat)` - This option adds timezone support by using the `tz()` method of Moment.js. It then formats the parsed date according to the specified format. + Pros: Provides timezone-aware parsing and formatting, but can be slower than native implementations due to additional overhead. + Cons: May introduce unnecessary complexity for simple use cases. **Luxon** Luxon is a modern JavaScript date library developed by the same team that created Moment.js. It aims to provide a more efficient and flexible alternative to Moment.js. * Option 3: `luxon.DateTime.fromISO(ts).setZone(timezone).toFormat(luxonFormat)` - This option uses Luxon's `DateTime` class to parse the input string `ts`, set the timezone, and format the result according to the specified format `luxonFormat`. + Pros: Provides efficient parsing and formatting with built-in timezone support. + Cons: May have a steeper learning curve due to its different API. **Custom Implementation** The custom implementation uses a simple regex-based approach to parse and format dates without relying on any external libraries. * Option 4: `...` - This option does not use an external library, instead implementing the date parsing and formatting logic itself. + Pros: Can be faster than external library implementations due to reduced overhead. + Cons: Requires manual handling of timezone and format complexities, which can lead to errors or inconsistencies. **Comparison** The benchmark results show that: 1. Luxon outperforms Moment.js in most test cases, indicating its efficiency and speed advantages. 2. The custom implementation is the fastest option, but it also requires more manual effort and may be more prone to errors. 3. Moment.js with timezone support (`moment(ts).tz(timezone).format(momentFormat)`) provides a balance between performance and ease of use. **Other Considerations** * DevicePlatform and OperatingSystem are not directly related to the benchmark's performance, but they can affect how the results are displayed or interpreted. * The `ExecutionsPerSecond` metric measures the number of executions performed per second. This value is higher for Luxon due to its optimized implementation. * The `RawUAString` field contains information about the browser and device used to execute each test case. In summary, this benchmark highlights the performance differences between various libraries and a custom implementation when it comes to date parsing and formatting with time zones.
Related benchmarks:
luxon vs datefns vs moment
Moment vs Luxon addDay
luxon vs datefns vs moment-timezone
Luxon vs moment comparison
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?