new Date(1678973400);
const str = '2023-03-16'
new Date(str.split('-'))
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
new Date timestamp | |
new Date string |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
new Date timestamp | 55312324.0 Ops/sec |
new Date string | 8649830.0 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.
Benchmark Purpose:
The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two ways to create Date
objects in JavaScript:
new Date()
constructor with a timestamp (in milliseconds).new Date()
constructor with a string representation of a date, using the Date.parse()
method.Tested Options:
There are only two options being compared:
Date
object.Date()
constructor.Pros and Cons:
Option 1 (new Date(1678973400);)
Pros:
Cons:
Option 2 (const str = '2023-03-16'\r\nnew Date(...str.split('-'))\r\n)
Pros:
Cons:
Library Usage:
None of the test cases use any external libraries.
Special JS Features/Syntax:
The benchmark uses the following JavaScript feature:
const str = '2023-03-16'\r\nnew Date(...str.split('-'))\r\n
syntax is using a template literal to concatenate strings and split dates. This feature is only available in modern browsers that support ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) or later.Alternatives:
Other alternatives for creating Date
objects include:
Date.now()
method, which returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix epoch (January 1, 1970).Date constructor
with a specific timezone offset or DST adjustment.Note that these alternatives may have their own trade-offs in terms of performance, accuracy, and compatibility across different browsers and platforms.