Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date with modulo
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
Comparing performance of:
Test case 1 vs Test case number 2
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
Test case 1
const SECONDS_PER_MINUTE = 60; const SECONDS_PER_HOUR = 60 * SECONDS_PER_MINUTE; const SECONDS_PER_DAY = 24 * SECONDS_PER_HOUR; const DAYS_PER_YEAR = 365; const DAYS_PER_LEAP_YEAR = DAYS_PER_YEAR + 1; const EPOCH_MONTH = 1; const EPOCH_YEAR = 1970; function getDateTime(timestamp) { let days = ~~(timestamp / SECONDS_PER_DAY); let year = EPOCH_YEAR; while (days >= getDaysForYear(year)) { days -= getDaysForYear(year); year++; } let daysPerMonth = getDaysPerMonth(year); let month = EPOCH_MONTH; while (days >= daysPerMonth[month]) { days -= daysPerMonth[month]; month++; } let day = days + 1; let secondsRemaining = timestamp % SECONDS_PER_DAY; let hour = ~~(secondsRemaining / SECONDS_PER_HOUR); let minute = ~~(secondsRemaining / SECONDS_PER_MINUTE) % SECONDS_PER_MINUTE; let second = secondsRemaining % SECONDS_PER_MINUTE; return { year, month, day, hour, minute, second }; } function isLeapYear(year) { return year % 400 === 0 || (year % 4 === 0 && year % 100 !== 0); } function getDaysForYear(year) { return isLeapYear(year) ? DAYS_PER_LEAP_YEAR : DAYS_PER_YEAR; } function getDaysPerMonth(year) { return [ 0, 31, isLeapYear(year) ? 29 : 28, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31 ]; } const currentDatetime = Date.now(); const { year, month, day, hour, minute, second } = getDateTime( currentDatetime );
Test case number 2
const pad = number => { if (number < 10) { return `0${number}`; } return number; }; const currentDatetime = new Date(); const year = currentDatetime.getUTCFullYear(); const month = pad(currentDatetime.getUTCMonth() + 1); const day = pad(currentDatetime.getUTCDate()); const hour = pad(currentDatetime.getUTCHours()); const minutes = pad(currentDatetime.getUTCMinutes()); const seconds = pad(currentDatetime.getUTCSeconds());
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Test case 1
Test case number 2
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/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 119 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=489390" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test case number 2
6.8M/s
Test case 1
4K/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Test case number 2
6,757,402 Ops/sec
Test case 1
3,721 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Measuring JavaScript performance is crucial for ensuring optimal code execution and user experience. **Benchmark Overview** The provided JSON represents two benchmark test cases: 1. "Date with modulo" - This test case measures the performance of a custom `getDateTime` function that calculates date and time components based on a given timestamp. 2. "Pad" - This test case measures the performance of a simple string padding function (`pad`) that adds leading zeros to single-digit numbers. **Options Compared** In both cases, the same options are being compared: * **Native JavaScript**: Using built-in JavaScript functions and data structures. * **Custom implementation**: Implementing the logic manually using JavaScript. **Pros and Cons of Different Approaches** 1. **Native JavaScript**: * Pros: Familiarity with built-in APIs, less code to maintain, potentially faster execution due to native optimization. * Cons: Limited control over performance, may not be optimized for specific use cases. 2. **Custom implementation**: * Pros: Total control over performance, can be optimized for specific use cases, and might be more suitable for complex logic. * Cons: Requires more code, may require additional testing and maintenance. **Library Usage** In the "Date with modulo" test case: * The `Date` object is used to get the current timestamp. * The `getDaysForYear`, `isLeapYear`, and `getDaysPerMonth` functions are custom implementations for calculating leap years and month days. These libraries are not explicitly mentioned, but they seem to be internal helper functions within the benchmark. However, their implementation might involve built-in JavaScript functions or native optimization techniques. **Special JS Features** No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in these test cases. They focus on measuring the performance of simple logic and custom implementations. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for testing JavaScript performance include: * **Benchmarking libraries**: Tools like Benchmark.js, Microbenchmark, or Fastify can provide more comprehensive benchmarking capabilities. * **Browser-specific APIs**: Using browser-specific APIs, such as Chrome's `performance.now()` or Firefox's `Performance.now()`, might provide better performance insights. In conclusion, the provided benchmark test cases demonstrate the importance of measuring JavaScript performance and comparing native JavaScript with custom implementations. By understanding the pros and cons of different approaches, developers can make informed decisions about optimizing their code for optimal execution.
Related benchmarks
lodash xor alternatives
lodash xor perf
lodash xor / sets / includes perf
new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs cached Intl.DateTimeFormat vs custom
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?