Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date clone test
(version: 0)
test Date(ts) vs Date(yy, mm, dd)
Comparing performance of:
getTime vs getYear
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var t = new Date()
Tests:
getTime
new Date(t.getTime())
getYear
new Date(t.getYear(), t.getMonth(), t.getDate())
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
getTime
getYear
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 break down the provided benchmark and its test cases. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark, named "Date clone test", measures the performance difference between creating a new Date object by using either the `getTime()` method or the `getYear()`, `getMonth()`, and `getDate()` methods. The benchmark aims to determine which approach is faster for cloning a Date object. **Script Preparation Code** The script preparation code initializes a new Date object, `t`, with the current date and time using `var t = new Date()`. This sets up the starting point for the benchmark. **Html Preparation Code** The html preparation code is empty (`null`), indicating that no additional HTML setup is required before running the benchmark. **Test Cases** There are two individual test cases: 1. **getTime**: This test case measures the performance of creating a new Date object by calling `new Date(t.getTime())`. 2. **getYear**: This test case measures the performance of creating a new Date object by passing separate year, month, and date values using `new Date(t.getYear(), t.getMonth(), t.getDate())`. **Options Compared** The two options being compared are: 1. **getTime**: Calls `t.getTime()` to get the timestamp value and then creates a new Date object with this timestamp. 2. **getYear**, **getMonth**, and **getDate**: Calls each method separately to extract the year, month, and date values from `t` and then passes these values to create a new Date object. **Pros and Cons** 1. **getTime**: * Pros: Faster, as it only requires one function call. * Cons: Requires parsing the timestamp value, which may be slower for large dates. 2. **getYear**, **getMonth**, and **getDate**: * Pros: Easier to read and maintain, as each method extracts a specific part of the date object separately. * Cons: Slower, as three separate function calls are required. **Library Usage** The benchmark uses no external libraries. It relies solely on built-in JavaScript methods to create Date objects. **Special JS Features or Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. However, it does use the `getTime()` method, which is a standard feature of the Date object. No additional context is required to understand its usage. **Other Alternatives** Alternative approaches for creating Date objects might include: 1. Using a library like Moment.js, which provides more advanced date manipulation and formatting capabilities. 2. Using a JavaScript module like `luxon` or `date-fns`, which offer alternative methods for working with dates in JavaScript. 3. Implementing custom date creation logic, but this would likely be slower than the built-in methods used here. Overall, the benchmark focuses on comparing two common approaches to creating Date objects in JavaScript and provides a simple test bed for evaluating performance differences between these alternatives.
Related benchmarks:
new Date().toISOString() vs new Date().toLocaleString()
Date() vs Date(YY,MM,DD,hh,mm)
Date parse vs clone
Compare Date cloning via object or timestamp
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?