Benchmark: ISO 8601 - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

ISO 8601
var d1 = new Date("2019-09-26T07:58:30.996+0200").valueOf(); var d2 = new Date("2019-10-26T07:58:30.996+0200").valueOf(); var diff = d2-d1;
Epoch
var d1 = 1569455880000; var d2 = 1572047880000; var diff = d2-d1;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
ISO 8601
Epoch

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**Overview**

The benchmark tests two different ways of calculating date differences: using the ISO 8601 format and the epoch time (January 1, 1970, at 00:00:00 UTC).

**Options compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **ISO 8601**: This method uses the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 8601 format to represent dates. The date is specified in the format `YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS.SSS+HH:MM`, where:
	* `YYYY` is the year in four digits.
	* `MM` is the month as a zero-padded two-digit number.
	* `DD` is the day of the month as a zero-padded two-digit number.
	* `THH` is the hour in 24-hour format.
	* `MM` is the minute as a zero-padded two-digit number.
	* `SS` is the second as a zero-padded two-digit number.
	* `.SSS` is the millisecond as a zero-padded three-digit number.
	* `+HH:MM` specifies the time zone offset from UTC in hours and minutes.
2. **Epoch**: This method uses the Unix epoch time, which represents the number of seconds that have elapsed since January 1, 1970, at 00:00:00 UTC.

**Pros and Cons**

**ISO 8601**:

Pros:

* Unambiguous and widely accepted format for representing dates.
* Easier to read and understand than epoch time.

Cons:

* May be slower due to the additional formatting and parsing required.

**Epoch**:

Pros:

* Faster, as it only requires subtraction of two numbers.
* More memory-efficient, as it doesn't require additional formatting data.

Cons:

* Less readable and understandable than ISO 8601 format.
* Can lead to errors if not handled carefully (e.g., daylight saving time transitions).

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided benchmark. However, it's likely that the JavaScript Date object or its methods are used to parse and manipulate dates.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The tests only involve basic arithmetic operations (subtraction) on numbers representing dates.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for comparing date differences could include:

1. Using the DateDiff function from a library like Moment.js.
2. Implementing a custom DateDiff function using a different algorithm, such as a binary search approach.
3. Comparing the number of iterations required to achieve a certain level of accuracy using a counter or benchmarking library.

Note that these alternatives may have their own pros and cons, which would need to be weighed against the benefits of using ISO 8601 or epoch time in this specific benchmark.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/110.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 110 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
ISO 8601	1607789.1 Ops/sec
Epoch	534532544.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

ISO 8601 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: ISO 8601 vs Epoch

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

ISO 8601

Epoch

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):