Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date parsing performance
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Date.now() vs Parsing date
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var timestamp = null;
Tests:
Date.now()
timestamp = Date.now();
Parsing date
timestamp = new Date("1990-01-05").getTime();
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Date.now()
Parsing date
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):
**Benchmark Overview** The MeasureThat.net benchmark measures the performance of JavaScript code in different scenarios. The provided JSON data represents two individual test cases: `Date.now()` and parsing a specific date string. **Test Cases** 1. **`Date.now()`**: * Test Description: Measures the execution time of the `Date.now()` method. * Purpose: Tests the performance of the built-in JavaScript function that returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix Epoch (January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC). 2. **Parsing a date string**: * Test Description: Measures the execution time of parsing a specific date string using the `Date` constructor. * Purpose: Tests the performance of parsing a date in the ISO 8601 format (`"1990-01-05"`) to get the number of milliseconds since the Unix Epoch. **Options Compared** The two test cases compare the performance of: 1. Built-in `Date.now()`: The optimized JavaScript function that provides the current time in milliseconds. 2. Parsing a date string using `new Date()` with a specific format: This method is more verbose and requires parsing the date string to extract the individual components (year, month, day) before constructing a new `Date` object. **Pros and Cons** 1. **Built-in `Date.now()`**: * Pros: Fast execution time, optimized for performance, and widely supported across different browsers and environments. * Cons: May not provide fine-grained timing information (e.g., millisecond resolution), and its performance may vary depending on the browser's internal clock resolution. 2. **Parsing a date string using `new Date()`**: * Pros: Provides more flexibility in parsing dates, as it can handle various formats and provides access to individual date components. * Cons: Generally slower than `Date.now()`, as it involves additional parsing steps and may be affected by the complexity of the input date string. **Library Usage** The `new Date()` method uses the built-in JavaScript `Date` object, which is a native implementation provided by most browsers. The purpose of this object is to represent a specific point in time and provide various methods for manipulating dates, such as parsing strings or calculating durations. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark setup. **Other Alternatives** For benchmarking JavaScript performance, MeasureThat.net provides a range of built-in benchmarks, including: 1. Number and arithmetic operations 2. String manipulation and concatenation 3. Array and object iteration 4. Regular expressions These benchmarks can be used to measure the performance of various JavaScript code snippets, allowing developers to compare different approaches and identify potential bottlenecks in their applications. In general, for measuring JavaScript performance, you may also want to consider using other benchmarking tools and frameworks, such as: 1. Benchmark.js 2. jsperf 3. Microbenchmark (part of the Node.js project) 4. JSHint These tools provide a range of features and options for creating and running benchmarks, including support for multiple platforms, browsers, and JavaScript versions.
Related benchmarks:
Date parsing
Date.parse vs new Date3
new Date().getTime() vs Date.parse()
Date.parse vs getTime()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?