Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date.parse vs new Date().getTime()
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
new Date vs Date.parse
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
new Date
new Date('01/01/2001').getTime();
Date.parse
Date.parse('01/01/2001');
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:
7 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:143.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/143.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 143 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=617945" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
new Date
7199647.0 Ops/sec
Date.parse
8580175.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Overview** MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark compares the performance of two ways to get the current date: `new Date()` with `.getTime()` or using the `Date.parse()` method. **Options Compared** The two options being compared are: 1. **`new Date('01/01/2001').getTime();`**: This approach uses the `new Date()` constructor and passes a string representation of a date to it. The resulting object is then called with the `getTime()` method, which returns the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC. 2. **`Date.parse('01/01/2001');`**: This approach uses the `Date.parse()` method directly, passing a string representation of a date to it. **Pros and Cons** * **`new Date()` with `.getTime()`**: + Pros: This approach is more explicit and allows for easy parsing of dates in a specific format. It also avoids potential issues with internationalization. + Cons: This approach creates an object, which can be slower due to the overhead of creating objects. * **`Date.parse()`**: + Pros: This approach is simpler and faster, as it doesn't create an object. + Cons: This approach can be less explicit and may produce incorrect results if the date string is not in a standard format. **Library and Syntax** In this benchmark, no specific library is used. However, note that `Date.parse()` has been deprecated in modern JavaScript versions since ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It's recommended to use `new Date('...').getTime()` or other methods like `Intl.DateTimeFormat().parse()` instead. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code is standard JavaScript. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for getting the current date include: * Using the `Date.now()` method, which returns the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC. * Using the `Intl.DateTimeFormat().format(new Date())` method to format a date object in a specific way. It's worth noting that these alternatives might not be exactly what this benchmark is testing, but they are other ways to achieve similar results.
Related benchmarks:
Date.parse vs new Date.getTime
new Date().getTime() vs Date.parse()
Date.parse vs getTime()
new Date().getTimer() vs Date.parse()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?