Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date.now vs setTimeout
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Date.now vs setTimeout
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Date.now
const timestamp = Date.now()
setTimeout
const handle = setTimeout(() => { this.shouldRestart = true; }, 1000 * 60 * 5);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Date.now
setTimeout
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/136.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 136 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=607077" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
Date.now
21474252.0 Ops/sec
setTimeout
704602.4 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared, and their pros and cons. **What is being tested?** Two different approaches are being compared: `Date.now()` and `setTimeout()`. The test aims to measure which one is faster in terms of executing a block of code within a specified time frame (5 minutes). **Options compared** * **`Date.now()`**: This function returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix epoch (January 1, 1970). It's a simple and straightforward way to get the current timestamp. * **`setTimeout()`**: This function schedules a callback function to be executed after a specified delay in milliseconds. In this test, it's used to schedule a block of code to run after a 5-minute delay. **Pros and Cons** * **`Date.now()`**: + Pros: Simple, fast, and widely supported. + Cons: May not provide the most accurate timestamp due to potential clock drift or system overhead. * **`setTimeout()`**: + Pros: Allows for more complex scheduling and callbacks, making it a popular choice for asynchronous programming. + Cons: Introduces additional overhead due to the need to schedule and manage timers. **Other considerations** * The `Date.now()` function is likely to be faster because it doesn't require setting up a timer or waiting for an event to occur. It simply returns the current timestamp. * The `setTimeout()` approach, on the other hand, requires setting up a timer, which may introduce additional overhead due to the need to manage timers and schedules. **Library** None of the test cases explicitly use any libraries. However, it's worth noting that `Date.now()` is a built-in function in JavaScript, while `setTimeout()` relies on the browser's or Node.js's implementation of the timer API. **Special JS feature or syntax** There are no special features or syntax used in these test cases. The code uses standard JavaScript syntax and doesn't employ any advanced features like async/await, promises, or decorators. **Alternative approaches** If you wanted to compare other approaches, some alternatives could be: * Using `performance.now()` instead of `Date.now()`: This function returns the number of milliseconds since performance measurement began. * Using `setInterval()` instead of `setTimeout()`: This function calls a block of code at regular intervals. Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different overheads or characteristics, and the results might be affected accordingly.
Related benchmarks:
Date.now() vs new Date().getTime()
new Date().getTime() vs Date.now()
Date.now() vs new Date()
Date.now() vs new Date().getTime(qu)
Date.now() - Date.now() vs new Date() - new Date()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?