Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date.now() vs new Date
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Date.now() vs new Date
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var timestamp = null;
Tests:
Date.now()
timestamp = Date.now();
new Date
timestamp = new Date
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Date.now()
new Date
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 the benchmark being measured on MeasureThat.net. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents two individual test cases that compare the performance of two methods: `Date.now()` and `new Date`. These methods are used to get the current timestamp in milliseconds since the Unix Epoch (January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC). **Options compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **`Date.now()`**: This method returns the number of milliseconds that have elapsed since January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC in the local time zone. 2. **`new Date`**: This method creates a new `Date` object and returns its timestamp in milliseconds. **Pros and Cons** * **`Date.now()`**: Pros: + Returns a value directly (no need to create an object or perform additional operations). + More concise and readable code. * Cons: + May not be as accurate or precise as `new Date`, especially when dealing with time zones or daylight saving time (DST) adjustments. * **`new Date`**: Pros: + Provides more flexibility and control over the date and time calculations, including support for time zones and DST. + Can be useful in scenarios where a more explicit date-time object is needed. Cons: * Requires creating an additional `Date` object, which might incur a small performance overhead. * Less concise and readable code compared to `Date.now()`. **Library and syntax** Neither of these methods relies on any external libraries. They are built-in JavaScript functions that can be used without additional imports or setup. **Special JS feature** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is solely on comparing the performance of two simple methods for getting the current timestamp. **Other alternatives** If you need to get a timestamp in JavaScript, other alternatives might include: 1. **`Intl.DateTimeFormat().resolvedOptions().timeZone`**: This method returns the time zone offset in milliseconds. 2. **`Date.now()` with a time zone adjustment**: You can use `Date.now()` and adjust it for your target time zone using the `getTimezoneOffset()` method or an external library like Moment.js. 3. **`Date` object manipulation**: Depending on your specific requirements, you might need to create a custom solution involving date arithmetic, which could be more efficient or expressive than using built-in methods. Keep in mind that these alternatives might introduce additional complexity and might not always offer better performance compared to `Date.now()` or `new Date`.
Related benchmarks:
Date.now() vs new Date().getTime()
new Date().getTime() vs Date.now()
Date.now() vs new Date()
Date.now() vs new Date().getTime(qu)
Date.now() - Date.now() vs new Date() - new Date()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?