Benchmark: Compare date conversions2

Script Preparation code:

var str = '2020-01-01'
var date = new Date(str)

Tests:

toISOString
const result = date.toISOString().split('T')[0] === str
getDate
const result = isNaN(date.getDate())

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toISOString
getDate

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 break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents a benchmark with two individual test cases: "toISOString" and "getDate". We'll examine each test case individually.

**Test Case 1: "toISOString"**

In this test case, the script preparation code creates a date object `date` from a string `str`, which represents the date "2020-01-01". The benchmark definition then checks if the ISO-formatted date string is equal to the original string using the `toISOString()` method.

**Test Case 2: "getDate"**

In this test case, the script preparation code also creates a date object `date` from the same string `str`. However, instead of checking an ISO-formatted date string, this test case checks if the result of calling `getDate()` on the `date` object is valid (i.e., not NaN) using the `isNaN()` function.

**Options Compared**

Two main approaches are being compared in these test cases:

1. **Using ISO-formatted date string**: In Test Case 1, the benchmark measures how fast the browser can parse an ISO-formatted date string and compare it to the original string.
2. **Calling a specific method on a Date object**: In Test Case 2, the benchmark measures how fast the browser can call `getDate()` on a Date object created from the same string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Using ISO-formatted date string**:
	* Pros: This approach is more accurate in terms of parsing the original date format.
	* Cons: It may require additional processing to parse the date string, which could impact performance.
2. **Calling a specific method on a Date object**: 
	* Pros: This approach is simpler and more straightforward, as it only requires calling a method on an existing Date object.
	* Cons: It may not accurately represent real-world use cases where dates are often parsed or compared in other ways.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON. However, the `Date` class is being used extensively in both test cases.

The only special JavaScript feature that might be relevant here is the `toISOString()` method, which returns an ISO-formatted date string. This method is part of the ECMAScript standard and has been supported by most browsers for many years.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to create a similar benchmark, you could consider adding more test cases or variations to cover additional scenarios, such as:

* Parsing dates from different formats (e.g., "MM/DD/YYYY", "YYYY-MM-DD")
* Comparing dates using different methods (e.g., `getTime()`, `getUTCDate()`)
* Using different libraries or frameworks for date manipulation and comparison

Keep in mind that the specific test cases and approaches will depend on your goals and requirements. MeasureThat.net provides a useful framework for comparing browser performance in various scenarios, but you may need to adapt and extend this approach to suit your needs.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:77.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/77.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 77 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toISOString	1042581.7 Ops/sec
getDate	12957652.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Compare date conversions2 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: toISOString vs getDate

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

toISOString

getDate

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):