Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date.now() vs new Date().getTime(q)
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Date.now() vs new Date().getTime(); vs plus
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var timestamp = null;
Tests:
Date.now()
timestamp = Date.now();
new Date().getTime();
timestamp = new Date().getTime();
plus
+new Date();
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Date.now()
new Date().getTime();
plus
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different methods for getting the current timestamp: 1. `Date.now()` 2. `new Date().getTime()` 3. `+new Date()` (a non-standard approach that increments the current date object by 1) **Options compared:** The two standard approaches, `Date.now()` and `new Date().getTime()`, are being compared to each other. **Pros and cons of different approaches:** * **`Date.now()`**: This method is a built-in function in JavaScript that returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix epoch (January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC). It's a simple and efficient way to get the current timestamp. * Pros: Fast, lightweight, widely supported. * Cons: Can be affected by system clock resolution (typically around 15ms). * **`new Date().getTime()`**: This method creates a new `Date` object and then calls its `getTime()` method to get the number of milliseconds since the Unix epoch. It's also a built-in function. * Pros: Similar to `Date.now()`, but can be useful in certain situations where you need to create a `Date` object for other purposes. * Cons: Creates an additional object, which might incur some overhead. **Non-standard approach:** The third option, `+new Date()` (or simply `+Date()`), is not a standard JavaScript method. It increments the current date object by 1 and then casts it to an integer using the unary plus operator (`+`). This approach is not recommended for several reasons: * **Performance**: Creating and incrementing a new `Date` object, followed by a cast to an integer, is significantly slower than calling either of the standard methods. * **Accuracy**: The resulting value may not be accurate due to floating-point arithmetic issues or the limitations of JavaScript's date representation. **Other considerations:** The benchmark also reports information about the browser, device platform, operating system, and execution speed. This data can help provide context for the results, but it shouldn't affect the interpretation of the timestamp comparisons. In summary, `Date.now()` is the recommended approach for getting the current timestamp due to its simplicity, efficiency, and widespread support. The `new Date().getTime()` method is an alternative that creates a new date object but can be useful in certain situations. The non-standard `+new Date()` (or `+Date()`) approach should be avoided due to performance and accuracy concerns. For more information on JavaScript's built-in `Date` object and its methods, you may want to check out the [ECMAScript standard](https://tc39.es/ecma262/).
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?