Benchmark: Date vs Dayjs.utc() vs Dayjs().utc()

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/dayjs@1/dayjs.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/dayjs@1/plugin/utc.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

dayjs.extend(window.dayjs_plugin_utc)

Tests:

Date
new Date('2000-01-01' + 'T00:00')
dayjs().utc()
dayjs('2000-01-01').utc()
dayjs.utc()
dayjs.utc('2000-01-01')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Date
dayjs().utc()
dayjs.utc()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, the different approaches compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares three ways to create a UTC date/time object: using JavaScript's built-in `Date` constructor, the `dayjs()` library with its `utc()` method, and `dayjs().utc()` (which is equivalent to calling `dayjs()` once and then accessing the `utc()` method).

**Options Compared**

1. **JavaScript's `Date` Constructor**
	* Creating a new `Date` object using the constructor.
	* Example: `new Date('2000-01-01T00:00')`
	* Pros:
		+ Built-in functionality, no additional dependencies.
		+ Simple to use.
	* Cons:
		+ Less efficient than other methods, as it involves parsing a string into a timestamp and then creating a new object.
2. **`dayjs()` Library with `utc()` Method**
	* Using the `dayjs()` library to create a date/time object and then calling its `utc()` method to set the UTC offset.
	* Example: `dayjs('2000-01-01').utc()`
	* Pros:
		+ Convenient and readable syntax.
		+ Often faster than other methods due to caching and optimized parsing.
3. **`dayjs().utc()`**
	* Creating a new `dayjs` object and then calling its `utc()` method on that object.
	* Example: `dayjs.utc('2000-01-01')`
	* Pros:
		+ Similar syntax to the previous option, but with the benefits of caching.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses a fixed input date/time string ('2000-01-01T00:00'), which means that any differences in execution speed are likely due to the chosen method rather than any variations in input.
* The `dayjs()` library is extended with the `window.dayjs_plugin_utc` plugin, which adds the `utc()` method. This suggests that the benchmark is using a specific version of `dayjs` that includes this plugin.

**Library and Syntax**

The `dayjs()` library is a popular JavaScript date/time library that provides a convenient and readable API for working with dates and times. The `utc()` method allows you to set the UTC offset for a given date/time object.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special features or syntaxes used in this benchmark. It's a straightforward comparison of three different approaches to creating a UTC date/time object.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative methods, here are a few options:

* Using the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API ( introduced in ECMAScript 2019) for working with dates and times.
* Utilizing libraries like Moment.js or Luxon for more advanced date/time manipulation and formatting capabilities.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional dependencies or complexity, so it's essential to carefully evaluate their trade-offs before adopting them.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Date	5357586.5 Ops/sec
dayjs().utc()	1859918.0 Ops/sec
dayjs.utc()	3102080.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Date vs Dayjs.utc() vs Dayjs().utc() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Date vs dayjs().utc() vs dayjs.utc()

Created: 3 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Date

dayjs().utc()

dayjs.utc()

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):