Benchmark: Date constructor

Script Preparation code:

let result;

Tests:

new Date(string)
result = new Date('2023-09-18T16:29:10.093Z');
new Date(number)
result = new Date(1695054550093);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new Date(string)
new Date(number)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
new Date(string)	2197006.0 Ops/sec
new Date(number)	4233703.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a simple JavaScript expression that creates an instance of the `Date` object using two different methods:

1. Creating a `Date` object from a string (using `new Date('...'`) )
2. Creating a `Date` object from a number (using `new Date(...)` )

**Options compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of these two approaches.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Creating a `Date` object from a string:**
	+ Pros:
		- This approach allows for more flexibility in creating dates, as you can use different date formats.
		- It's also useful when working with user-provided input or external data sources.
	+ Cons:
		- Parsing the date string can be error-prone and may not work correctly for all date formats.
		- This approach requires more CPU resources to parse the date string.
* **Creating a `Date` object from a number:**
	+ Pros:
		- This approach is faster than parsing a date string, as it directly converts the timestamp to a Date object.
		- It's also more robust and less prone to errors.
	+ Cons:
		- This approach only works for Unix timestamps (number of seconds since January 1, 1970) and may not work with other types of dates.

**Library**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the `Date` object is a built-in JavaScript object that provides this functionality.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None are used in this specific benchmark.

Now, let's discuss some alternative approaches and considerations:

* **Other alternatives:** You can use third-party libraries like Moment.js (for date formatting and manipulation) or Luxon (for handling dates). However, these libraries might add extra overhead to your code.
* **Considerations:**
	+ When working with user-provided input or external data sources, using the string-based approach may be necessary for flexibility. However, this comes at the cost of increased CPU resources and potential parsing errors.
	+ For Unix timestamps, the number-based approach is generally faster and more reliable. However, you need to ensure that the timestamp is in seconds since January 1, 1970.

In summary, the benchmark is testing the performance difference between creating a `Date` object from a string versus a number. The string-based approach provides flexibility but comes with increased CPU resources and potential parsing errors.

Related benchmarks:

Date constructor (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: new Date(string) vs new Date(number)

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

new Date(string)

new Date(number)

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):