Benchmark: Date parsing - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

date
var startDate="2020-03-01T10:00:00+00:00"; var date = new Date(startDate);
Date.parse
var startDate="2020-03-01T10:00:00+00:00"; var date = Date.parse(startDate);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
date
Date.parse

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 benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Purpose**
The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two different ways to parse dates in JavaScript: using the `Date` constructor (`var date = new Date(startDate);`) versus using the `Date.parse()` method (`var date = Date.parse(startDate);`). The purpose is to measure which approach is faster.

**Options Compared**

1. **Using the `Date` constructor**: This method creates a new `Date` object from the provided string. It's considered a more modern and intuitive way of parsing dates, as it allows for easier validation and formatting.
2. **Using the `Date.parse()` method**: This method parses the date string directly into an integer representing milliseconds since the Unix epoch (January 1, 1970). While it's faster, it can be less intuitive and more prone to errors due to the lack of built-in validation.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`Date` constructor**:
	+ Pros: More modern, intuitive, and flexible; allows for easier validation and formatting.
	+ Cons: May be slower than `Date.parse()` in some cases, depending on the browser and hardware.
* **`Date.parse()` method**:
	+ Pros: Faster, as it bypasses the overhead of creating a new `Date` object.
	+ Cons: Less intuitive, more prone to errors due to lack of built-in validation.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses a fixed date string (`"2020-03-01T10:00:00+00:00"`), which might not be representative of real-world scenarios where dates may vary.
* The test cases only compare the two parsing methods, without considering other factors like rounding errors or locale-specific formatting.

**Library and Special JS Features**

None mentioned in this benchmark. Both `Date` constructor and `Date.parse()` method are part of the built-in JavaScript API.

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider:

1. **Using a dedicated date parsing library**, such as Moment.js, which provides more features and flexibility for date manipulation.
2. **Comparing parsing methods with other libraries**, like luxon.js or Date-Fns, to see how they perform in different scenarios.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might add additional complexity and overhead compared to the simple comparison made by MeasureThat.net.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.122 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 80 on Mac OS X 10.15.3

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
date	2515064.8 Ops/sec
Date.parse	3073322.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Date parsing (version: 0)

11

Comparing performance of: date vs Date.parse

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

date

Date.parse

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):