Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
getTime() vs now()
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
getTime() vs now()
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
getTime()
return new Date().getTime()
now()
return Date.now()
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
getTime()
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):
I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this benchmark and the options compared. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents two individual test cases, each comparing the performance of two different ways to get the current time: `getTime()` (a method on the `Date` object) versus `now()` (which is a alias for `getTime()`). **Options compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **`getTime()`**: This method returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix epoch (January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC) as an integer. 2. **`now()`**: As mentioned earlier, `now()` is an alias for `getTime()`, so it's essentially the same thing. **Pros and Cons** The pros and cons of these approaches are relatively minor: * **`getTime()`**: This method has a few advantages: + It returns a value in milliseconds, which can be useful for certain performance-critical code paths. + Some browsers (like Chrome) have optimized this method for better performance. * **`now()`**: As an alias for `getTime()`, it's essentially the same as above. However, some developers might find it more readable or intuitive. **Other considerations** Since both methods are aliases, there aren't many other considerations beyond the minor pros and cons mentioned above. One potential consideration is that if you're using a library that has its own timing functions (like `Date.now()`), this benchmark won't accurately represent your code's performance. **Library usage** In this case, none of the test cases explicitly use any JavaScript libraries. However, it's worth noting that some browsers' implementations of `getTime()` and `now()` might rely on underlying library components. **Special JS features or syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It's a straightforward comparison between two methods. **Alternatives** If you want to create your own microbenchmark, MeasureThat.net provides a simple interface for doing so. You can also use other online tools like jsPerf or Benchmark.js to create and run your own benchmarks. In terms of alternatives for this specific benchmark, if you wanted to compare the performance of `getTime()` versus `now()` in different browsers, you could: * Create another benchmark that compares these two methods using a different browser (e.g., Firefox). * Use MeasureThat.net's "Compare" feature to create a new benchmark that compares the performance of these two methods across multiple browsers. * Write your own benchmarking code using JavaScript and your preferred testing framework.
Related benchmarks:
Date.now(); vs new Date().getTime();
Date.now() vs new Date().getTime()
new Date().getTime() vs Date.now()
Date.now() vs new Date().getTime(qu)
Date.now() - Date.now() vs new Date() - new Date()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?