Benchmark: Date comparison with today

Script Preparation code:

var x = new Date('2020-05-06');
var today = new Date();

Tests:

Simple
var diff = x.getFullYear() === new Date().getFullYear() && x.getMonth() === new Date().getMonth() && x.getDate() === new Date().getDate();
toISOString()
var diff2 = x.toISOString().substr(0, 10) === new Date().toISOString().substr(0, 10);
Simple with cached date
var diff3 = x.getFullYear() === today.getFullYear() && x.getMonth() === today.getMonth() && x.getDate() === today.getDate();
toISOString() with cached date
var diff4 = x.toISOString().substr(0, 10) === today.toISOString().substr(0, 10);
Simple with local date
var localToday = new Date(); var diff5 = x.getFullYear() === localToday.getFullYear() && x.getMonth() === localToday.getMonth() && x.getDate() === localToday.getDate();
toISOString() with local date
var localToday = new Date(); var diff6 = x.toISOString().substr(0, 10) === localToday.toISOString().substr(0, 10);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Simple
toISOString()
Simple with cached date
toISOString() with cached date
Simple with local date
toISOString() with local date

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for testing date comparison in JavaScript. The test cases aim to measure which approach is faster: comparing dates directly using `getYear()`, `getMonth()`, and `getDate()` or using the `toISOString()` method.

**Benchmark Definition**

In this case, the benchmark definition is simple. It creates two dates, `x` and `today`, where `x` is set to a specific date (`2020-05-06`) and `today` is set to the current date. The test then compares these dates using different methods:

* Direct comparison: `diff = x.getFullYear() === new Date().getFullYear() && x.getMonth() === new Date().getMonth() && x.getDate() === new Date().getDate();`
* `toISOString()` method: `diff2 = x.toISOString().substr(0, 10) === new Date().toISOString().substr(0, 10);`

The benchmark definition also provides alternative approaches:

* `Simple with cached date`: Using the same approach as before but using the pre-calculated `today` variable.
* `Simple with local date`: Creating a new `localToday` variable to simulate a different date object.

**Options Compared**

In this case, we're comparing three options:

1. **Direct comparison**: Comparing dates using their individual properties (`getYear()`, `getMonth()`, and `getDate()`).
2. **`toISOString()` method**: Converting dates to strings using the `toISOString()` method and comparing them.
3. **Cached date approach** (`Simple with cached date` and `Simple with local date`): Using pre-calculated or simulated date objects to compare with the original `x` variable.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief summary:

* **Direct comparison**: Pros: Simple and straightforward; Cons: Can be slower due to property lookups.
* **`toISOString()` method**: Pros: Fast string comparisons; Cons: May not work as expected for dates with time components (only takes the date part).
* **Cached date approach**:
	+ `Simple with cached date`: Pros: Faster by reusing pre-calculated values; Cons: Assumes `today` is correct, which may not always be the case.
	+ `Simple with local date`: Pros: Similar to `cached date`, but simulates a different date object.

**Library and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. However, JavaScript's built-in `Date` object is utilized for date comparisons.

No special JavaScript features or syntaxes (like async/await, ES6 classes, or Promises) are used in the provided test cases. The focus is on comparing different approaches to date comparison.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches that could be explored include:

* Using a library like Moment.js for date manipulation and comparison.
* Comparing dates using other methods, such as `getTime()` or `Date.UTC()`.
* Testing with different time zones or daylight saving adjustments.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be relevant to the specific goal of this benchmark, but they could provide interesting variations for further testing.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.163 Safari/537.36 OPR/67.0.3575.137

Browser/OS: Opera 67 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Simple	520032.2 Ops/sec
toISOString()	409716.8 Ops/sec
Simple with cached date	1917643.5 Ops/sec
toISOString() with cached date	486593.2 Ops/sec
Simple with local date	1197104.2 Ops/sec
toISOString() with local date	418245.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Date comparison with today (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Simple vs toISOString() vs Simple with cached date vs toISOString() with cached date vs Simple with local date vs toISOString() with local date

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Simple

toISOString()

Simple with cached date

toISOString() with cached date

Simple with local date

toISOString() with local date

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):