Benchmark: date-comparison-test-rvi

HTML Preparation code:

<script>
var d1 = new Date(2018,0,5,10,00,52),
    d2 = new Date(2018,0,5,10,00,52)
</script>

Tests:

to iso
d1.toISOString() === d2.toISOString()
to utc
d1.toUTCString() === d2.toUTCString()
Gettime
d1.getTime() === d2.getTime()
Plus trick
+d1 === +d2

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
to iso
to utc
Gettime
Plus trick

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that represents the microbenchmark to be executed. In this case, there are four test cases:

1. `d1.toISOString() === d2.toISOString()`: Compares the ISO-formatted string representation of two dates.
2. `d1.toUTCString() === d2.toUTCString()`: Compares the UTC-formatted string representation of two dates.
3. `d1.getTime() === d2.getTime()`: Compares the number of milliseconds since the Unix Epoch (January 1, 1970) between two dates.
4. `+d1 === +d2`: Compares the numeric value of the first date (`d1`) with the second date (`d2`).

**Options Compared**

The test cases compare different methods for comparing dates:

* `toISOString()` and `toUTCString()` are formatting options that produce strings in a specific format.
* `getTime()` is a method that returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix Epoch.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1. **`toISOString()`**: Pros:
	* Produces a standardized string representation of dates.
	* Can be used for comparison.
Cons:
	* May not be suitable for all use cases (e.g., when working with non-standard date formats).
2. **`toUTCString()`**: Pros:
	* Produces a UTC-formatted string representation of dates.
	* Can be used for comparison.
Cons:
	* May not be suitable for dates outside the UTC time zone.
3. **`getTime()`**: Pros:
	* Provides a numeric value that can be compared directly.
	* Fast and efficient.
Cons:
	* Does not preserve date format or timezone information.

**Library**

The `Date` class is used in these test cases, which is a built-in JavaScript library. The `Date` object represents a specific point in time and provides various methods for manipulating dates.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark (e.g., async/await, promises, ES6+ classes). However, the use of `==` for comparison might be considered outdated by modern coding standards, which recommend using strict equality (`===`) instead.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for comparing dates include:

* Using a date formatting library like Moment.js or Luxon.
* Creating a custom function to normalize and compare dates.
* Using a numerical representation of dates (e.g., Unix timestamps) when working with dates in code.

Overall, the benchmark seems well-structured, and the options compared provide valuable insights into different approaches for comparing dates.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/113.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 113 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
to iso	450615.6 Ops/sec
to utc	537206.9 Ops/sec
Gettime	3788060.5 Ops/sec
Plus trick	2204571.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

date-comparison-test-rvi (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: to iso vs to utc vs Gettime vs Plus trick

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

to iso

to utc

Gettime

Plus trick

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):