Benchmark: String split date vs parse date 3

Script Preparation code:

var dateStrings = Array(10000).fill(null).map(() => (new Date()).toISOString());
var padDate = date => (date < 10 ? `0${date}` : date);

Tests:

Parse Date
dateStrings.map((d) => { const date = new Date(d); return `${padDate(date.getDate())}.${padDate(date.getMonth() + 1)}.${padDate(date.getYear())}`; });
String split
dateStrings.map((d) => { const [year, month, day] = d.split('T')[0].split('-'); return `${day}.${month}.${year}`; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Parse Date
String split

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 108 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Parse Date	106.1 Ops/sec
String split	216.2 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 JSON data and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JavaScript code snippet that defines two test cases: `String split date vs parse date 3` and its corresponding `Test Name`. The benchmark prepares an array of 10,000 date strings by mapping over an array of 10,000 dates (using `new Date()` and `toISOString()`) and padding the date components with zeros.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases being compared are:

1. **String Split**: This option uses the `split()` method to extract year, month, and day components from each date string.
2. **Parse Date**: This option creates a new `Date` object for each date string using `new Date()` and then extracts the year, month, and day components.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **String Split**:
	+ Pros: Simple, efficient, and easy to implement.
	+ Cons: May not handle edge cases or invalid dates well.
* **Parse Date**:
	+ Pros: Can handle edge cases and invalid dates more robustly than string splitting.
	+ Cons: More computationally expensive due to creating new `Date` objects.

**Library/Function**

The `padDate()` function is used in both test cases. This function takes a date component (day, month, year) and pads it with zeros if necessary.

```javascript
function padDate(date) {
  return date < 10 ? `0${date}` : date;
}
```

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses the `let` keyword for variable declarations, which is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). This is likely used to take advantage of faster execution times due to the compiler optimizations enabled by this syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to write similar benchmarks using alternative approaches:

* Instead of `split()` and `padDate()`, you could use a library like Moment.js or Luxon to manipulate dates.
* For creating new `Date` objects, you could consider using the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API or a library like date-fns.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not offer significant performance improvements over the original implementation and may add additional dependencies or complexity.

**Test Results**

The latest benchmark results show that Chrome 108 on Windows Desktop achieved higher execution rates for both test cases. However, it's essential to analyze the results carefully to understand any potential issues or limitations with the testing environment.

Related benchmarks:

String split date vs parse date 3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Parse Date vs String split

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Parse Date

String split

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):