Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Fastest way to get the current timestamp
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
new Date().getTime() vs +(new Date()) vs Date.now()
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
new Date().getTime()
new Date().getTime();
+(new Date())
+(new Date());
Date.now()
Date.now();
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
new Date().getTime()
+(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):
I'd be happy to explain the provided benchmark and its related concepts. **What is tested on the provided JSON?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests three different ways to get the current timestamp: `new Date().getTime()`, `+(new Date())`, and `Date.now()`. These methods are compared in terms of their performance, specifically the number of executions per second (`ExecutionsPerSecond`) on a specific device platform (Desktop) with a certain browser version (Chrome 117). **Options compared** The three options compared are: 1. **`new Date().getTime()`**: This method uses the `Date` object to get the timestamp in milliseconds since the Unix epoch (January 1, 1970). It's a widely used and well-supported approach. 2. **`+(new Date())`**: This method is similar to the first one but uses a bitwise unary plus operator (`+`) to convert the result of `new Date()` to an integer. The purpose of this approach is unclear and may be intended to optimize for performance or something else. 3. **`Date.now()`**: This method is a shorthand version of `new Date().getTime()` that returns only the timestamp in milliseconds since the Unix epoch. **Pros and cons of each approach** 1. **`new Date().getTime()`**: * Pros: Widely supported, easy to read, and well-documented. * Cons: May have performance overhead due to the creation of a `Date` object. 2. **`+(new Date())`**: * Pros: May be optimized for performance or have some edge case benefits. * Cons: Unreadable, not well-documented, and may cause issues with code readability or maintainability. 3. **`Date.now()`**: * Pros: Shorter and more concise than `new Date().getTime()`, making it easier to read. * Cons: May be less readable for those unfamiliar with this method, and its performance is similar to `new Date().getTime()`. **Library usage** There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON. However, some of these methods may rely on internal libraries or optimizations provided by modern JavaScript engines (e.g., V8 for Chrome). **Special JS features or syntax** None are explicitly mentioned or used in this benchmark. **Other considerations** The benchmark only considers performance metrics and does not account for other factors like: * Code readability and maintainability * Platform support (beyond the specified Desktop + Chrome 117) * Browser version specificity **Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to get the current timestamp, consider using `Intl.DateTimeFormat().resolvedOptions().timeZone`, which provides a more modern and flexible way of handling timezone considerations. Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as straightforward or optimized for performance as the methods tested in this benchmark.
Related benchmarks:
Date.now() __vs__ new Date().getTime()
Date.now() vs new Date().getTime(qu)
Date.now() vs +new Date() test
Date.now() vs new Date().getTime()1
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?