Benchmark: new Date() - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Datetime full + timezone
new Date('2021-05-25T08:36:38.135565+02:00')
Datetime short
new Date('2021-05-25')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Datetime full + timezone
Datetime short

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.101 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Datetime full + timezone	2658140.8 Ops/sec
Datetime short	3663278.5 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 and its options.

**What is tested?**

The test measures the performance of the JavaScript `Date` object in parsing dates with varying levels of precision: short (year-month-day) and full (year-month-day-timezone).

**Options compared**

There are two main approaches:

1. **Short date**: "new Date('2021-05-25')"
	* Pros:
		+ Simpler to parse, as it only requires the year, month, and day.
		+ Can be parsed faster, as there's less data to process.
	* Cons:
		+ Less accurate, as it doesn't account for the time or timezone information.
2. **Full date with timezone**: "new Date('2021-05-25T08:36:38.135565+02:00')"
	* Pros:
		+ More accurate, as it includes the time and timezone information.
		+ Can provide more context for error handling or logging purposes.
	* Cons:
		+ More complex to parse, as it requires additional data (timezone offset).

**Library**

None of the test cases use any external libraries. The `Date` object is a built-in JavaScript function.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

The tests utilize standard JavaScript features:

1. Template literals (`new Date('...'}`)
2. String concatenation (`+`)
3. Unix timestamp-like format strings (`YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS[.mmm]Z`, where `Z` indicates the timezone offset)

**Benchmark preparation code and HTML preparation code**

The benchmark definition and test cases are defined as simple JavaScript strings, which means that no specific code needs to be executed before running the tests. The `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code` fields are empty, indicating that no custom setup is required.

**Other alternatives**

To measure the performance of a different date parsing approach or library, you could consider:

1. Using a different programming language, such as Python or C++, which might offer better performance characteristics.
2. Employing specialized libraries like Moment.js (for more advanced date formatting and analysis) or Luxon (for robust date handling with timezone support).
3. Optimizing the JavaScript `Date` object's implementation (if possible, which is unlikely due to its inherent complexity).

Keep in mind that the choice of approach ultimately depends on your specific use case, requirements, and performance constraints.

Related benchmarks:

new Date() (version: 0)

Measure how fast is the date parsing using new Date()

Comparing performance of: Datetime full + timezone vs Datetime short

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Datetime full + timezone

Datetime short

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):