Benchmark: Date.parse and toString() vs new Date

Tests:

new Date
new Date('01/01/2001');
Date.parse
Date.parse('01/01/2001');
Date.parse and toString
Date.parse('01/01/2001'.toString());

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new Date
Date.parse
Date.parse and toString

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
new Date	2010367.1 Ops/sec
Date.parse	2040378.5 Ops/sec
Date.parse and toString	2106615.0 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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The test measures the performance difference between three approaches:

1. `Date.parse` with or without converting its result to a string using `toString()`.
2. Creating a new instance of `Date` object directly, without parsing a date string.
3. Creating a new instance of `Date` object by passing a date string in the format `'01/01/2001'`.

**Options compared:**

The three options are:

* Option 1: `Date.parse` followed by `toString()` to convert its result back to a string.
* Option 2: Directly creating a new instance of `Date` object using `new Date()`.
* Option 3: Creating a new instance of `Date` object by passing a date string in the format `'01/01/2001'`.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Option 1 (Date.parse + toString())**:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported.
	* Cons: May be slower due to unnecessary conversion to string.
2. **Option 2 (new Date)**:
	* Pros: Can take advantage of native browser optimizations.
	* Cons: Requires creating a new instance of `Date`, which may have additional overhead.
3. **Option 3 (Parsing date string directly)**:
	* Pros: Can be optimized for specific date formats.
	* Cons: Limited to the specified format and may not work with other formats.

**Library usage:**

None of the tests use a library explicitly, but `Date` is a built-in JavaScript object. The purpose of `Date` is to represent a moment in time and provide methods for manipulating dates.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

No special features or syntax are used in these tests.

**Benchmark preparation code explanation:**

The `Script Preparation Code` field is empty, which means the test doesn't require any specific setup or initialization before running. The `Html Preparation Code` field is also empty, implying that no HTML-specific preparations are needed.

**Other alternatives:**

To improve performance or explore alternative approaches, consider:

* Using other date parsing libraries like Moment.js.
* Experimenting with different date formats and their performance implications.
* Evaluating the impact of caching or memoization on these benchmarks.
* Considering the use of WebAssembly or other low-level optimizations for better performance.

Related benchmarks:

Date.parse and toString() vs new Date (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: new Date vs Date.parse vs Date.parse and toString

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

new Date

Date.parse

Date.parse and toString

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):