Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Test meow
(version: 0)
meow
Comparing performance of:
new Date(Date.now() + 0) vs new Date() vs new Date( new Date().getTime() + sysDateObj.svrdiffms);
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
new Date(Date.now() + 0)
new Date(Date.now() + 0)
new Date()
new Date()
new Date( new Date().getTime() + sysDateObj.svrdiffms);
new Date( new Date().getTime() + 0);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
new Date(Date.now() + 0)
new Date()
new Date( new Date().getTime() + sysDateObj.svrdiffms);
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):
Let's break down what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark. **Benchmark Goals and Options** The goal of this benchmark is to measure the performance of creating new Date objects in JavaScript. There are three test cases: 1. `new Date()`: Creates a new Date object without any additional parameters. 2. `new Date(Date.now() + 0)`: Creates a new Date object with a fixed timestamp value, which is equivalent to calling `Date.now()` and adding 0 milliseconds to it. 3. `new Date( new Date().getTime() + sysDateObj.svrdiffms);`: Creates a new Date object by adding a specific time value ( stored in the `sysDateObj` variable) to the current timestamp, obtained from `new Date().getTime()`. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **`new Date()`**: This approach is simple and efficient, as it doesn't require any additional calculations or dependencies. * Pros: Easy to implement, fast execution time. * Cons: May not accurately reflect real-world performance, as the timestamp value is fixed. 2. **`new Date(Date.now() + 0)`**: This approach adds a small overhead due to the additional calculation and parameter passing. * Pros: Can provide more accurate results by using a variable timestamp value. * Cons: Adds unnecessary complexity and execution time due to the arithmetic operation. 3. **`new Date( new Date().getTime() + sysDateObj.svrdiffms)`**: This approach adds significant overhead due to the nested calls and large constant values. * Pros: Can provide highly accurate results by using a large, variable timestamp value. * Cons: Extremely slow execution time due to the complex arithmetic operation. **Library Usage** There is no explicit library usage in these test cases. However, it's worth noting that the `Date` object and its methods are part of the JavaScript standard library. **Special JS Features or Syntax** None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require explanation. The tests only rely on basic JavaScript syntax and semantics. **Alternative Benchmarks** If you wanted to create alternative benchmarks for creating new Date objects, you could consider exploring other approaches, such as: * Using a different date library (e.g., moment.js) to compare performance. * Creating a benchmark that measures the performance of various date-related operations (e.g., parsing dates, converting between date formats). * Using JavaScript's built-in `Date.parse()` method instead of creating new Date objects. Keep in mind that these alternative benchmarks would require significant changes to the existing test cases and might not be directly comparable.
Related benchmarks:
Spread vs. Apply
Fill array with random integers
Concat vs push(...) for large arrays random
Flatten Array of Arrays
Concat vs push(...) for large arrays 222
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?