Benchmark: Date.parse vs custom

Script Preparation code:

var dateString = '2000-01-25';

function parseDate(str) {
  const dateValues = str.split('-');

  return new Date(dateValues[0], dateValues[1] - 1, dateValues[2]);
}

Tests:

Date.parse
var parsedDate = new Date(Date.parse(dateString));
custom
var parsedDate = parseDate(dateString);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Date.parse
custom

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for parsing dates in JavaScript: using `Date.parse` and creating a custom function called `parseDate`.

The custom function splits the date string into its constituent parts (year, month, day), and then uses those values to create a new `Date` object.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Using `Date.parse`**: This approach delegates the date parsing to the built-in `Date.parse` method.
2. **Creating a custom function (`parseDate`)**: This approach involves writing a custom JavaScript function to manually parse the date string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### Using `Date.parse`

Pros:

* Easy to implement
* Built-in method, so no additional library is required
* Works with most browsers and platforms

Cons:

* May not work correctly for all date formats (e.g., dates in a specific locale or format)
* Can be slower due to the overhead of the built-in parsing function

### Creating a Custom Function (`parseDate`)

Pros:

* Can handle more complex date formats by manually splitting and parsing the string
* Often faster than using `Date.parse`, as it avoids the overhead of the built-in parsing function

Cons:

* Requires manual implementation, which can be error-prone if not done correctly
* May require additional logic to handle edge cases (e.g., month and day values out of range)

**Library Used**
None, in this case.

**Special JavaScript Features or Syntax**
The benchmark does not use any special features or syntax that would affect the results. The focus is on comparing two basic approaches to date parsing.

**Other Alternatives**
There are other ways to parse dates in JavaScript, such as using `Intl.DateTimeFormat` (for more complex date formats) or a library like Moment.js (for a more robust and feature-rich solution).

Keep in mind that the performance difference between these approaches may vary depending on the specific use case and environment. The benchmark is likely designed to provide a general comparison of these two basic methods.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/61.0.3163.31 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 61 on Mac OS X 10.12.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Date.parse	1459487.9 Ops/sec
custom	1650290.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Date.parse vs custom (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Date.parse vs custom

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Date.parse

custom

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):