Benchmark: Date comparation

Script Preparation code:

var date1 = new Date(2020, 5, 8);
var date2 = new Date(2020, 9, 15);

Tests:

Raw test
date1 < date2
Get Time test
date1.getTime() < date2.getTime()
another raw test
date1 <= date2

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Raw test
Get Time test
another raw test

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/87.0.4280.88 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 87 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Raw test	2877402.0 Ops/sec
Get Time test	5764370.0 Ops/sec
another raw test	2909514.8 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and individual test cases to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by a JSON object with three properties:

1. `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which is "Date comparation".
2. `Description`: An empty string, indicating that there is no description for this benchmark.
3. `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: These are empty strings, suggesting that there's no specific setup code required for the test.

However, upon closer inspection of the individual test cases, we see that three separate test cases are defined:

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case has a unique identifier and consists of two parts: `Benchmark Definition` and `Test Name`.

1. **Raw test**: The first test case has a benchmark definition of `date1 < date2`, which is a raw comparison using the `<` operator.
2. **Get Time test**: The second test case has a benchmark definition of `date1.getTime() < date2.getTime()`. This uses the `getTime()` method to get the timestamp in milliseconds for each date object, and then compares these values.
3. **Another Raw test**: The third test case has a similar benchmark definition to the first one, but with `<=` instead of `<`, resulting in `date1 <= date2`.

**What's being tested?**

These three test cases are testing different approaches to compare two dates using JavaScript.

* The **Raw test** is comparing the dates directly using the `<` operator.
* The **Get Time test** uses the `getTime()` method to get the timestamp in milliseconds for each date object and then compares these values. This approach can be useful when working with dates that span across different time zones or have fractional seconds.
* The **Another Raw test** is similar to the first one, but with a different comparison operator (`<=`).

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Raw Test**: Pros: Simple and straightforward. Cons: May be affected by floating-point precision issues and edge cases like invalid dates.
* **Get Time Test**: Pros: More accurate and robust than the raw test, as it uses timestamps in milliseconds. Cons: Requires access to the `getTime()` method on each date object.

**Library usage**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in the provided code, but note that the use of the `Date` class and its methods (like `getTime()`) implies a dependency on the JavaScript standard library's built-in date handling capabilities.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None are explicitly used here. However, if you were to modify these tests to involve more advanced features like async/await, promises, or modern ES modules, it would be worth mentioning those in context.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for benchmarking JavaScript performance might include:

* V8 Benchmark Suite: A collection of benchmarks designed to measure the performance of various V8-related features.
* Microbenchmarking frameworks like `@micro-benchmark`: This allows you to define multiple microbenchmarks with varying inputs and observe their relative performance.

That concludes our analysis!

Related benchmarks:

Date comparation (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Raw test vs Get Time test vs another raw test

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Raw test

Get Time test

another raw test

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 months ago):