Benchmark: Date valueOf() vs getTime()

Tests:

valueOf()
return new Date().valueOf()
getTime()
return new Date().getTime()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
valueOf()
getTime()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:137.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/137.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 137 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
valueOf()	17668272.0 Ops/sec
getTime()	17675160.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this specific benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark, named "Date valueOf() vs getTime()", compares the performance of two methods: `valueOf()` and `getTime()` on JavaScript dates. The test aims to determine which method is faster and more efficient for obtaining a numeric representation of a date value.

**Options Being Compared**

There are only two options being compared:

1. `valueOf()`: Returns the value of the date as an integer, representing the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970, at 00:00:00 UTC.
2. `getTime()`: Also returns the value of the date as an integer, but this method is more straightforward and directly provides the number of milliseconds since the Unix epoch (January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC).

**Pros and Cons**

* `valueOf()` has a few pros:
	+ It's often preferred for its simplicity and directness.
	+ Some browsers might optimize this method better due to its lower overhead.
* However, `valueOf()` also has some cons:
	+ The returned value is an integer, which may lose precision for dates beyond 1990.
	+ This method can be slower in older browsers or those with limited JavaScript capabilities.

On the other hand:

* `getTime()` is generally faster and more accurate than `valueOf()`, as it directly returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix epoch:
	+ Pros: Accurate, fast, and widely supported across modern browsers.
	+ Cons: May still have issues in older browsers or with very large date values.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There is no specific library being used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that JavaScript dates are a built-in feature of the language, making them accessible to all JavaScript developers without any additional dependencies.

No special JavaScript features are being tested in this benchmark. The focus is solely on comparing two standard methods for obtaining a numeric representation of date values.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options:

1. `toDateString()`: Returns the date as a string in the format "YYYY-MM-DD". While not suitable for numerical comparisons, it can be useful for formatting dates.
2. `toUTCString()`: Similar to `toDateString()`, but returns the date in UTC time zone.
3. `toISOString()`: Returns the date and time in ISO 8601 format (e.g., "2023-03-16T14:30:00.000Z").

Keep in mind that these alternatives have their own use cases and might not be directly comparable to `valueOf()` and `getTime()`.

I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested in the MeasureThat.net benchmark!

Related benchmarks:

Date valueOf() vs getTime() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: valueOf() vs getTime()

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

valueOf()

getTime()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):