Benchmark: luxon parse datetime vs time interval

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:

luxon from iso
luxon.DateTime.fromISO(ds).plus({ seconds: 300 }).toISO();
luxon interval
luxon.Interval.fromISO(`${ds}/PT300S`).toISO();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
luxon from iso
luxon interval

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches for parsing and manipulating dates in JavaScript:

1. Using Luxon's `DateTime.fromISO` method with an additional `plus` operation to add 300 seconds.
2. Using Luxon's `Interval.fromISO` method directly.

**Luxon Library and Purpose**

Luxon is a modern JavaScript date library that provides efficient and accurate ways to work with dates, times, and intervals. It aims to replace outdated APIs like `Date.parse()` and `Date.prototype.toString()`. In this benchmark, Luxon is used for its robust parsing capabilities, which can handle various formats and edge cases.

**Test Cases**

The two test cases are:

1. **luxon from iso**: This test case measures the execution time of creating a new `DateTime` object from an ISO-formatted string using `luxon.DateTime.fromISO`.
2. **luxon interval**: This test case measures the execution time of creating a new `Interval` object directly from an ISO-formatted string using `luxon.Interval.fromISO`.

**Comparison Options**

The two options being compared are:

* Using `luxon.DateTime.fromISO` with an additional `plus` operation
* Using `luxon.Interval.fromISO`

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Using `luxon.DateTime.fromISO` with a plus operation:**
	* Pros:
		+ Allows for more flexible date arithmetic (e.g., adding/subtracting seconds, minutes, hours).
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an additional method call (`plus()`), which may incur overhead.
2. **Using `luxon.Interval.fromISO`:**
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and direct way to create intervals.
	* Cons:
		+ May not provide the same level of flexibility as using `DateTime` with a plus operation.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark is running in Chrome 126 on a Windows Desktop, which may introduce some variability due to differences in JavaScript engine optimizations or hardware capabilities.
* The test results are reported as executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond), which indicates the number of iterations completed within one second. A higher value suggests better performance.

**Alternatives**

Other date libraries or approaches could be used to achieve similar functionality, such as:

* Using `Date.parse()` and manipulating the resulting timestamp
* Utilizing other JavaScript libraries like Moment.js or DayPilot
* Implementing custom date arithmetic using native JavaScript methods

However, Luxon's robust parsing capabilities, concise API, and performance make it a suitable choice for this benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 15 days 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
luxon from iso	154445.6 Ops/sec
luxon interval	111999.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

luxon parse datetime vs time interval (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: luxon from iso vs luxon interval

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

luxon from iso

luxon interval

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):