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
Jump 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>
Test name
Executions per second
new Date
5970947.5 Ops/sec
Date.parse
5643566.0 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?