Benchmark: Comparing new Date vs raw number comparison

Script Preparation code:

oldDate = new Date()

Tests:

Unix timestamp comparison
1695925012 > oldDate.getTime()
js date object comparison
new Date() > oldDate

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Unix timestamp comparison
js date object comparison

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided benchmark tests the performance of two approaches for comparing dates in JavaScript: using `new Date()` and converting to raw numbers (Unix timestamps).

**Approaches being compared:**

1. **Raw number comparison:** This approach converts the date object to a Unix timestamp, which is a numerical representation of time that can be easily compared.
2. **JavaScript date object comparison:** This approach compares two date objects directly using the `>` operator.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

* **Raw number comparison:**
	+ Pros:
		- Faster execution times due to avoiding unnecessary string conversions
		- Can take advantage of optimized numerical comparisons in JavaScript engines
	+ Cons:
		- Requires an additional conversion step, which can introduce overhead
		- May not be as readable or maintainable for developers who prefer a more explicit date comparison approach
* **JavaScript date object comparison:**
	+ Pros:
		- More readable and maintainable, as it explicitly compares dates using human-readable operators
		- Does not require additional conversions or assumptions about the format of the dates
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower than raw number comparisons due to unnecessary string conversions or operator overloads

**Considerations:**

* The choice of approach depends on the specific use case and performance requirements. For high-performance applications, raw number comparisons might be preferred. However, for code readability and maintainability, JavaScript date object comparisons might be a better choice.
* It's essential to note that both approaches assume that the input dates are in a format that can be represented by JavaScript's `Date` object (i.e., ISO 8601 or similar formats).

**Library used:**

None is explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. However, it's likely that the benchmark script uses built-in JavaScript libraries and functions to perform date-related operations.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

The test cases do not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ECMAScript features. The `new Date()` function and comparison operators (`>`) are used as expected.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives for comparing dates in JavaScript include:

* Using the `Date.now()` method, which returns the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970, UTC.
* Implementing custom date comparison functions that avoid unnecessary conversions or assumptions about date formats.
* Using external libraries like Moment.js or Date-fns, which provide optimized and flexible date manipulation and comparison capabilities.

It's worth noting that the choice of alternative will depend on the specific requirements and constraints of the project.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/16.3 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
Unix timestamp comparison	18929720.0 Ops/sec
js date object comparison	4898474.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Comparing new Date vs raw number comparison (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Unix timestamp comparison vs js date object comparison

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Unix timestamp comparison

js date object comparison

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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