const dateString = "2024-05-31T09:13:43.095Z";
if (/^\d+-\d+-\d+T\d+:\d+:\d+(\.\d+)?$/.test(dateString)) {
dateString += 'Z';
}
const result = Date.parse(dateString);
isNaN(result) ? null : (result / 1000.0);
const dateString = "2024-05-31T09:13:43.095Z";
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Date from string | |
Just assigning string |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Date from string | 9243965.0 Ops/sec |
Just assigning string | 502514752.0 Ops/sec |
I'd be happy to help you understand the benchmark.
What is being tested?
The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case on MeasureThat.net. The test aims to compare two approaches:
Date.parse()
function.The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches on converting a specific date string.
Options being compared:
The test case has two options:
Date.parse()
function.Pros and Cons of each approach:
Direct Date.parse:
Date.parse()
function, which may not always return a valid result.Deferred Date Creation:
Library:
There is no specific library used in this benchmark. However, the Date
object and its methods (Date.parse()
) are part of the JavaScript standard library.
Special JS feature or syntax:
No special JavaScript features or syntax are being tested or utilized in this benchmark.
Benchmark Preparation Code:
The provided JSON does not include any preparation code for the benchmark. This suggests that the tests can be run directly using the Date.parse()
function and the input date string without requiring additional setup or configurations.
Other alternatives:
There are alternative approaches to handling dates in JavaScript, such as:
Intl.DateTimeFormat
for formatting dates.However, these alternatives may not be relevant to this specific benchmark, which focuses on comparing the performance of two simple approaches: direct Date.parse()
and deferred date creation.