Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date.parse vs new Date from string
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
new Date vs Date.parse
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
new Date
new Date('Next-Day Delivery <br> Arrives tomorrow, Wednesday Oct. 27');
Date.parse
Date.parse('Next-Day Delivery <br> Arrives tomorrow, Wednesday Oct. 27');
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
new Date
Date.parse
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:148.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/148.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 148 on Ubuntu
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=626044" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
new Date
15110719.0 Ops/sec
Date.parse
22485676.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested in the benchmark. **What is being tested?** The benchmark compares the performance of two different ways to parse dates in JavaScript: 1. `new Date()` with a string argument 2. `Date.parse()` with a string argument In other words, the test cases are checking how fast each method can process a specific date string. **Options compared:** There are two options being compared: 1. **`new Date()`**: This method creates a new `Date` object by parsing the provided string. The string is expected to be in a format that can be parsed by the browser's internal date parser. 2. **`Date.parse()`**: This method returns the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC for the specified date string. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** * `new Date()`: Pros: + More intuitive and easier to use, especially when working with human-readable dates. + Less error-prone, as the browser's internal parser can handle many common date formats. * Cons: + May be slower than `Date.parse()` due to the overhead of creating a new `Date` object. * `Date.parse()`: Pros: + Faster, as it only requires parsing the date string and returns a numeric value. + More flexible, as it can handle more complex date formats and edge cases. * Cons: + Less intuitive and less error-prone than `new Date()`, especially for developers without experience with date parsing. **Library usage:** There is no explicit library being used in this benchmark. However, the `Date` object itself is a built-in JavaScript object that provides methods for working with dates. **Special JS features or syntax:** This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. It only relies on standard JavaScript features and objects. **Other alternatives:** If you're looking to measure performance in JavaScript, here are some alternative approaches: 1. **V8 Perf**: A benchmarking tool specifically designed for measuring the performance of JavaScript engines. 2. **Benchmark.js**: A popular benchmarking library for JavaScript that provides a simple way to write and run benchmarks. 3. **JSPerf**: A benchmarking tool specifically designed for measuring the performance of JavaScript code. In summary, this benchmark is testing the performance difference between `new Date()` and `Date.parse()` in JavaScript, which can be useful for developers working with dates in their applications.
Related benchmarks:
Date.parse and toString() vs new Date
Date.parse vs new Date with comparison
new Date(Date.parse()) vs new Date
Date.parse vs string date comparsion
Date.parse string vs new Date ms
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?