Benchmark: luxon vs Date - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/luxon@1.26.0/build/global/luxon.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.ds = "2020-02-19T00:51:53.623839+00:00";

Tests:

js date
new Date(window.ds)
luxon
luxon.DateTime.fromISO(ds);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
js date
luxon

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test comparing two JavaScript libraries: `Date` (built-in JavaScript) and `Luxon`. The goal of this benchmark is to measure the performance difference between these two libraries when creating dates.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is used to set up the environment for the benchmark. In this case, it sets a variable `ds` with a specific ISO 8601 date string:
```javascript
window.ds = "2020-02-19T00:51:53.623839+00:00";
```
This code is executed only once before running the benchmark tests.

**HTML Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a reference to the `Luxon` library:
```html
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/luxon@1.26.0/build/global/luxon.min.js"></script>
```
This ensures that the `Luxon` library is available for use in the benchmark tests.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **"js date"`: This test case creates a new date object using the built-in `Date` constructor:
```javascript
new Date(window.ds);
```
2. **"luxon"`**: This test case uses the `Luxon` library to create a date object from an ISO 8601 date string:
```javascript
luxon.DateTime.fromISO(ds);
```
**Performance Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

* Built-in `Date` constructor (JavaScript)
* Luxon's `DateTime.fromISO` method

**Pros and Cons:**

**Built-in `Date` Constructor:**

Pros:

* Lightweight and efficient
* Native JavaScript implementation, no external dependencies

Cons:

* May be slower due to parsing the ISO 8601 date string manually
* Less robust than Luxon for handling date-related tasks

**Luxon's `DateTime.fromISO` Method:**

Pros:

* Robust implementation with built-in support for ISO 8601 dates
* Faster execution due to optimized parsing and formatting

Cons:

* External dependency on the Luxon library, which may introduce additional overhead
* May have a steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with Luxon

**Other Considerations:**

* The benchmark results are reported in executions per second (EPS), which can be an indicator of performance.
* The `RawUAString` field includes information about the browser and device used to run the benchmark, which can help analyze the environment's impact on performance.

**Alternatives:**

Other libraries or approaches that could be compared in a similar benchmark include:

* Moment.js (another popular date library)
* ISODate (a lightweight library for working with ISO 8601 dates)
* A custom implementation using native JavaScript and optimized parsing techniques

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 16 hours ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
js date	3985227.8 Ops/sec
luxon	585970.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

luxon vs Date (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: js date vs luxon

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

js date

luxon

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):