Benchmark: compare moment vs moment.unix

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/moment.js/2.19.3/moment.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var unix = 1724409214;

Tests:

moment(unix)
return moment(unix);
moment.unix(unix)
return moment.unix(unix);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
moment(unix)
moment.unix(unix)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
moment(unix)	3653760.0 Ops/sec
moment.unix(unix)	3666861.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two ways to create a moment.js object using the `moment` library: by passing a Unix timestamp (`unix`) directly, and by using the `moment.unix()` method with the same timestamp. The benchmark aims to determine which approach is faster.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Direct Passing**: Passing the Unix timestamp (`unix`) directly to the `moment` constructor.
2. **Using moment.unix()**: Using the `moment.unix()` method to create a moment object with the provided timestamp.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Direct Passing**:
	+ Pros: Simple, efficient, and straightforward way to create a moment object.
	+ Cons: May not be as flexible or feature-rich as using `moment.unix()`.
* **Using moment.unix():**
	+ Pros: Can be more convenient and flexible than direct passing, especially when working with different time zones.
	+ Cons: Adds an extra function call, which might introduce overhead.

**Library and Its Purpose**

The `moment` library is a popular JavaScript date and time manipulation library. It provides various methods for working with dates and times, such as formatting, parsing, and calculating differences between timestamps. The `moment.unix()` method specifically creates a moment object from a Unix timestamp.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between direct passing and using `moment.unix()`, consider the specific requirements of your project:

* If you need to work with dates and times in different time zones, using `moment.unix()` might be a better choice.
* If you're working with a large dataset or performance-critical code, direct passing might be more efficient.

**Other Alternatives**

If you don't have access to the moment.js library, there are alternative date and time libraries available for JavaScript, such as:

1. **Date.js**: A popular JavaScript date manipulation library.
2. **Luxon**: A modern JavaScript date and time library with a simple API.
3. **Date-fns**: A lightweight JavaScript date utility library.

Keep in mind that the performance difference between these alternatives might be negligible compared to using a well-established library like moment.js.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark and its test cases!

Related benchmarks:

compare moment vs moment.unix (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: moment(unix) vs moment.unix(unix)

Created: 4 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

moment(unix)

moment.unix(unix)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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