Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
new Date(Date.parse()) vs new Date
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
new Date vs Date.parse
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
new Date
new Date('2010-12-23T23:12:00');
Date.parse
new Date(Date.parse('2010-12-23T23:12:00'));
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:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=578690" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
new Date
6.0M/s
Date.parse
5.6M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
new Date
5,970,948 Ops/sec
Date.parse
5,643,566 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what is being tested. **Overall Purpose** The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches for creating a new `Date` object: using the constructor `new Date()` versus passing a string literal to it, such as `'2010-12-23T23:12:00'`. The benchmark aims to measure which approach is faster and more efficient. **Options Compared** The two options being compared are: 1. **new Date()**: This method creates a new `Date` object by calling the constructor with no arguments. 2. **new Date('2010-12-23T23:12:00')**: This method creates a new `Date` object by passing a string literal to the constructor. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **new Date()**: * Pros: Simple, intuitive, and straightforward. * Cons: May be slower due to parsing the argument as a date string. 2. **new Date('2010-12-23T23:12:00')**: * Pros: Can take advantage of native browser optimizations for parsing date strings. * Cons: Requires passing an exact string, which may not work for all dates or edge cases. **Library and Special JS Feature** In this benchmark, the `Date` constructor is used to create a new date object. The `Date.parse()` method is also mentioned in one of the test cases, but it's not explicitly used in the provided benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that `Date.parse()` can be used to parse a string into a timestamp. **Other Considerations** * **Browser-specific optimizations**: Different browsers may have optimized their date parsing and creation algorithms, which could affect the results of this benchmark. * **Node.js vs Browser environments**: The benchmark is executed in a browser environment (Chrome 104), but if it were run in a Node.js environment, the results might be different due to differences in how dates are parsed and created. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for creating a new date object could include: * Using a library like Moment.js or Luxon, which provide more features and flexibility for working with dates. * Creating a custom implementation using JavaScript's built-in `Date` functions and arithmetic operations. If you want to explore these alternatives, I can help guide you through the process!
Related benchmarks
Date.parse vs new Date with comparison
Date.parse vs new Date (ISO format)
Date.parse vs new Date from string
Date.parse vs new Date with ISO 8601 format
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?