Benchmark: Date.toLocaleDateString with options

Tests:

without toLocaleDateString
var x = new Date(); var y = new Date(); var z = x.getFullYear() === y.getFullYear() && x.getMonth() === y.getMonth() && x.getDate() === y.getDate();
with toLocaleDateString
var x = new Date(); var y = new Date(); var z = x.toLocaleDateString('en-US') === y.toLocaleDateString('en-US');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
without toLocaleDateString
with toLocaleDateString

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is tested?**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: comparing dates without using `toLocaleDateString` and with using `toLocaleDateString`. The test cases check if two dates have the same year, month, and day (without considering hours, minutes, or seconds).

**Options compared:**

1. **Without toLocaleDateString**: This approach compares two dates using their primitive values (`year`, `month`, and `date`) without formatting them as strings.
2. **With toLocaleDateString**: This approach uses the `toLocaleDateString` method to format both dates as strings, which can help with comparisons.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Without toLocaleDateString**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient in terms of memory usage and computation, since it avoids creating formatted strings.
	* Cons: Requires manual handling of date components (year, month, day), which can lead to errors or inconsistencies if not done correctly.
2. **With toLocaleDateString**:
	* Pros: Provides a convenient and standardized way to format dates as strings, making comparisons easier.
	* Cons: May involve additional computation time for formatting and potentially larger memory usage due to the creation of formatted strings.

**Library used in test cases**

None are explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition or individual test cases. However, `toLocaleDateString` is a standard JavaScript method that comes with the browser's DOM API (Document Object Model).

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There doesn't appear to be any specific JavaScript features or syntax used beyond the use of `toLocaleDateString`.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark uses a Chrome browser on a Mac OS X 10.15.6 platform, which might affect the results due to variations in browser behavior or system configuration.
* The tests are executed multiple times per second (as indicated by the `ExecutionsPerSecond` values), which suggests that the goal is to measure performance under high load conditions.

**Alternatives:**

If you were to create your own JavaScript benchmark, you might consider alternatives such as:

1. **Using a library like Date-fns**, which provides a set of utility functions for working with dates and times.
2. **Employing a different comparison method**, such as using regular expressions or string manipulation techniques to compare date strings.
3. **Testing other scenarios**, such as comparing dates in different cultures, handling timezones, or considering edge cases like date invalidation.

Keep in mind that the specific approach you choose will depend on your goals and requirements for the benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/84.0.4147.105 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 84 on Mac OS X 10.15.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
without toLocaleDateString	1326944.6 Ops/sec
with toLocaleDateString	3568.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Date.toLocaleDateString with options (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: without toLocaleDateString vs with toLocaleDateString

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

without toLocaleDateString

with toLocaleDateString

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):