Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
JS Date
(version: 0)
JS Date
Comparing performance of:
New Date vs New Date Two
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
New Date
new Date('2018-12-31T23:00:00.000Z')
New Date Two
new Date(1633006375)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
New Date
New Date Two
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 119 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=486079" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
New Date
1528892.4 Ops/sec
New Date Two
3534575.5 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested. **What is being tested?** The benchmark measures how fast JavaScript engines can create new `Date` objects using different approaches: as strings in internationalized format (ISO 8601) or numeric values. **Options compared** There are two options compared: 1. **New Date with string parameter**: Creating a new `Date` object by passing a string in the ISO 8601 format (`"new Date('2018-12-31T23:00:00.000Z')"`). This approach is used to test how JavaScript engines handle string parameters. 2. **New Date with numeric value**: Creating a new `Date` object by passing a numeric value ( Unix timestamp) in milliseconds (`"new Date(1633006375)"`). This approach tests the engine's handling of numeric values. **Pros and Cons** 1. **String parameter**: * Pros: Easier to read and write, provides more context about the input data. * Cons: May be slower due to string parsing and formatting overhead. 2. **Numeric value**: * Pros: Faster execution time since no additional parsing is required. * Cons: Requires users to provide Unix timestamps in milliseconds. Other considerations: * The benchmark does not account for edge cases, such as invalid input data or different cultures. * It assumes that the JavaScript engine will perform some kind of formatting on the input string parameter (although it doesn't specify how). **Library and purpose** In this case, there is no specific library being used. However, some JavaScript engines may use internal libraries to parse and format date strings. **Special JS feature or syntax** There is no special JS feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on the basic `Date` object creation functionality. **Alternative approaches** To create a similar benchmark, you could consider adding more test cases, such as: * Testing different locales and cultures * Using other date formats (e.g., RFC 3339) * Incorporating edge cases (e.g., invalid input data, NaN values) Additionally, you could compare the performance of different JavaScript engines or versions. To create a similar benchmark, you can use tools like [Benchmark.js](https://benchmarkjs.com/) or [JavaScript Benchmark Suite](https://jibrowski.github.io/javascript-benchmark-suite/), which provide a framework for creating and running benchmarks.
Related benchmarks:
Moment Dayjs Date-fns comparison
Dayjs Date-fns format comparison
Moment Dayjs Date-fns format benchmark 2
Dayjs Date-fns format benchmark
date diff
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?