Benchmark: Date.parse vs new Date vs Date String Split

Tests:

String split date
var b = "2021-11-10T01:48:00.000Z".split(/\D+/); Date.UTC(b[0], --b[1], b[2], b[3], b[4], b[5], b[6]);
new Date
new Date("2021-11-10T01:48:00.000Z")
Date.parse
Date.parse("2021-11-10T01:48:00.000Z")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String split date
new Date
Date.parse

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is tested, the options compared, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

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

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which is "Date.parse vs new Date vs Date String Split".
* `Description`: An empty string indicating that there's no description for this benchmark.
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: These fields are empty, suggesting that the user needs to provide their own script preparation code and HTML preparation code.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of three test cases:

1. **String split date**
	* `Benchmark Definition`: A JavaScript code snippet that splits a date string using the `split()` method with a regular expression, and then uses the resulting parts to create a new `Date` object.
	* This test case is likely comparing the performance of parsing a date string without relying on built-in date parsing functions.
2. **new Date**
	* `Benchmark Definition`: A JavaScript code snippet that creates a new `Date` object using the `new Date()` constructor, passing a date string as an argument.
	* This test case is likely comparing the performance of creating a new `Date` object using the built-in constructor.
3. **Date.parse**
	* `Benchmark Definition`: A JavaScript code snippet that uses the `Date.parse()` function to parse a date string and returns the resulting number of milliseconds since the Unix Epoch (January 1, 1970).
	* This test case is likely comparing the performance of parsing a date string using the built-in `Date.parse()` function.

**Options Compared**

The three test cases are comparing different approaches to parsing or creating dates:

1. **String split**: Using the `split()` method with a regular expression to extract parts from the date string, and then using those parts to create a new `Date` object.
2. **new Date**: Creating a new `Date` object using the built-in constructor, passing a date string as an argument.
3. **Date.parse**: Using the built-in `Date.parse()` function to parse the date string.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons for each approach:

1. **String split**:
	* Pros: Portable, can be used in environments where built-in functions are not available.
	* Cons: May be slower due to regular expression processing.
2. **new Date**: Pros: Fast, efficient, and widely supported. Cons: May rely on internal implementation details of the `Date` object.
3. **Date.parse**:
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: May not handle all possible date formats correctly.

**Library Considerations**

None of the test cases explicitly use a library or external dependency. However, if the user were to add a library, it could potentially impact performance or behavior.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require additional explanation. If there were any specific features, such as async/await or ES modules, they would not be relevant in this context.

**Other Alternatives**

If the user wanted to compare alternative approaches for parsing dates, some options could include:

* Using a dedicated date parsing library like moment.js
* Implementing a custom date parser using JavaScript's built-in functions (e.g., `Date`, `String`, and regular expressions)
* Using a different data format, such as JSON or XML

Keep in mind that these alternatives would depend on the specific requirements and constraints of the benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 108 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String split date	1540137.0 Ops/sec
new Date	2754728.2 Ops/sec
Date.parse	3068559.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Date.parse vs new Date vs Date String Split (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String split date vs new Date vs Date.parse

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String split date

new Date

Date.parse

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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