Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date Init Test
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
New Instances vs Old Instance
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var init = new Date();
Tests:
New Instances
for (let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { const x = new Date(init.getTime() + i).getTime(); }
Old Instance
for (let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { const x = init.setTime(init.getTime() + i); }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
New Instances
Old Instance
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 help explain what's tested in the provided benchmark and break down the options compared. **What is being tested?** The test cases measure the performance of creating new Date objects with different approaches: either by creating a new Date instance using the `new` keyword (`New Instances`) or by modifying an existing Date object using the `setTime()` method (`Old Instance`). The benchmark aims to determine which approach is faster and more efficient. **Options compared** There are two main options being compared: 1. **Creating a new Date instance**: `const x = new Date(init.getTime() + i);` * Pros: + Creates a new, independent Date object with the specified time. + May be more predictable and consistent in terms of behavior. * Cons: + Creates an additional object in memory, which can lead to increased memory usage. + May involve more overhead due to the creation of a new object. 2. **Modifying an existing Date object**: `init.setTime(init.getTime() + i);` * Pros: + Reuses the existing Date object, reducing memory allocation and deallocation overhead. + May be faster since it involves fewer operations. * Cons: + Modifies the original Date object, which may lead to unexpected behavior if not handled carefully. + May result in less predictable behavior due to the modification of the original value. **Library used** There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it appears that a custom `init` variable is defined as a new Date object at the beginning of each test case. This suggests that the benchmark is using a simple, custom implementation for creating and manipulating Date objects. **Special JavaScript feature or syntax** There are no special features or syntax used in this benchmark beyond what's standard in JavaScript. No ES6+ features like async/await, destructuring, or classes are employed. **Other alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to measuring performance in JavaScript, here are a few options: 1. **Benchmarking frameworks**: Consider using established benchmarking libraries like `benchmark.js` or `jsperf`, which provide more comprehensive features for writing and running benchmarks. 2. **Performance comparison libraries**: Libraries like `fastest` or `performance-now` offer optimized methods for comparing performance metrics across different environments. 3. **Profiling tools**: Tools like Chrome DevTools' profiler or Node.js built-in profiling can provide detailed insights into the performance characteristics of your code. In summary, this benchmark measures the performance difference between creating new Date objects using the `new` keyword versus modifying an existing Date object using `setTime()`. The test results indicate that `New Instances` is slightly faster than `Old Instance`, but both approaches have trade-offs in terms of memory usage and predictability.
Related benchmarks:
Intl.DateTimeFormat
toLocaleDateString()
Date.toLocaleDateString vs Date.toDateStringfds
Date.getTime()
Intl.DateTimeFormat with and without init
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?