<script src="https://unpkg.com/dayjs@1.8.21/dayjs.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://igor.moomers.org/random/datefns.js"></script>
window.ds = "2020-02-19T00:51:53.623839+00:00";
window.datefns.parseISO(window.ds);
window.datefns.add(new Date(2014, 8, 1, 10, 19, 50), {
years: 2,
months: 9,
weeks: 1,
days: 7,
hours: 5,
minutes: 9,
seconds: 30,
});
dayjs(ds)
dayjs(new Date(2014, 8, 1, 10, 19, 50)).add({
years: 2,
months: 9,
weeks: 1,
days: 7,
hours: 5,
minutes: 9,
seconds: 30,
})
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Date-fns | |
Dayjs |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Date-fns | 63521.7 Ops/sec |
Dayjs | 71379.0 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of different approaches.
Benchmark Overview
The test measures the performance difference between using the dayjs
library and the datefns
library for date formatting and manipulation tasks. Specifically, it compares the execution speed of parsing an ISO-formatted string and adding a custom date interval to both libraries.
Library Descriptions
Test Case Analysis
The test consists of two individual test cases:
window.datefns.parseISO(window.ds);
.window.datefns.add(...)
.dayjs(ds).add({...})
.Comparison of Approaches
The two libraries use different approaches to achieve their performance goals:
Pros and Cons
Special JS Features or Syntax
None of the test cases explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ES6 features.
Other Alternatives
For date manipulation and formatting tasks, other alternatives to Day.js and Date-fns include:
Keep in mind that the choice of library ultimately depends on your specific project requirements, performance needs, and personal preference.