Benchmark: Date Split or Slice 2

Script Preparation code:

var date = new Date().toISOString();

Tests:

split
date.split('T')[0];
slice
date.slice(0, 10);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
split
slice

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 benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two specific methods for extracting date components from an ISO 8601-formatted string in JavaScript: `split` (using `T`) and `slice`.

**Script Preparation Code**

Before running each test case, a script is executed to prepare the input data:
```javascript
var date = new Date().toISOString();
```
This code creates a new `Date` object and converts it to an ISO 8601-formatted string using the `toISOString()` method.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that the benchmark only focuses on JavaScript performance and doesn't involve any additional HTML-related tasks.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **Split Test Case**: The benchmark definition for this test case is:
```javascript
date.split('T')[0];
```
This code splits the ISO 8601-formatted string at the `T` character (which separates the date from the time) and extracts the first component (the date).

2. **Slice Test Case**: The benchmark definition for this test case is:
```javascript
date.slice(0, 10);
```
This code extracts a substring of length 10 characters starting from the beginning of the ISO 8601-formatted string.

**Library and Special Features**

There are no external libraries used in these test cases. However, it's worth noting that the `Date` object is a built-in JavaScript object, which means that the benchmark relies on its internal implementation details to produce results.

As for special features, there isn't any explicit mention of ES6 or newer features in the code snippets provided. However, the use of `const` and the modern syntax suggest that the benchmark might be targeting older browsers that don't support these features.

**Comparison and Options**

The two test cases compare the performance of two different approaches to extract date components from an ISO 8601-formatted string:

* The `split` approach uses the `T` character as a delimiter.
* The `slice` approach extracts a fixed-length substring starting from the beginning of the string.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

* **Split Approach**
	+ Pros:
		- Simple and efficient
		- Doesn't require manual parsing or regex patterns
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower due to the overhead of creating an array from the split result
* **Slice Approach**
	+ Pros:
		- Can be faster since it avoids the overhead of creating an array
	+ Cons:
		- Requires manual parsing and handling of the ISO 8601 format

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to extract date components from an ISO 8601-formatted string include:

* Using regex patterns to parse the string
* Creating a custom function or method to handle the parsing and extraction
* Utilizing other libraries or frameworks that provide optimized solutions for this problem

However, since the benchmark focuses on JavaScript performance and doesn't involve additional complexity, it's likely that the `split` and `slice` approaches will remain relevant as optimal solutions.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/16.0 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 16 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
split	5289534.5 Ops/sec
slice	10215419.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Date Split or Slice 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: split vs slice

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

split

slice

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):