Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
new Date vs Date.now
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
new Date vs Date now
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
new Date
new Date();
Date now
Date.now();
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
new Date
Date now
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):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks! **What is tested?** The provided JSON represents two benchmark test cases that compare the performance of `new Date()` and `Date.now()` in JavaScript. These functions are used to obtain the current date and time. The main difference between them lies in how they handle dates: * `new Date()`: Creates a new `Date` object, which is initialized with the current date and time based on the system clock. * `Date.now()`: Returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix Epoch (January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC) as a 32-bit integer. **Options compared** The benchmark compares two options: 1. **Using `new Date()`**: This approach creates a new `Date` object and returns its value. 2. **Using `Date.now()`**: This approach directly returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix Epoch. **Pros and Cons** * Using `new Date()`: Pros: * Can handle dates in different formats (e.g., UTC, local timezones). * More flexible for date calculations. Cons: * Creates a new object on every call, which can be expensive in terms of memory allocation and garbage collection. * Using `Date.now()`: Pros: * Directly returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix Epoch, eliminating the need to create an object. Cons: * Only returns the time in seconds since the Unix Epoch (not accounting for fractional parts). * May not be suitable for date calculations requiring timezone conversion. **Other considerations** * **Memory allocation**: Creating a new `Date` object on every call using `new Date()` can lead to memory allocation and garbage collection overhead, making it slower than using `Date.now()`. * **Precision**: `Date.now()` returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix Epoch as a 32-bit integer, which may lose precision for very large numbers. * **Browser support**: Both functions are widely supported across modern browsers. **Library usage** In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly used. The JavaScript `Date` and `Date.now()` functions are built-in and part of the ECMAScript standard. **Special JS features or syntax** There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. It focuses solely on comparing the performance of two basic date-time-related functions. If you're interested in exploring more advanced date-time-related concepts, you might want to consider libraries like Moment.js or Luxon, which provide more robust and flexible date manipulation capabilities. **Alternatives** To create similar benchmarks, you can explore other options: 1. **Test frameworks**: Use a test framework like Jest or Mocha to write and run tests. 2. **Benchmarking libraries**: Utilize libraries like Benchmark.js or Microbenchmark to create and compare benchmark results. 3. **Web performance tools**: Leverage Web Performance Tools like Chrome DevTools' Performance tab or Firefox's Performance Monitoring Tool to analyze and optimize your web applications. By understanding these alternatives, you can extend your benchmarking capabilities and explore more advanced testing techniques.
Related benchmarks:
Date.now(); vs new Date()
Date.now() - Date.now() vs new Date() - new Date()
Date comparison Date.now vs new Date
+new Date() vs Date.now()
Date.now() vs. now()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?