Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
new Date from timestamp vs new Date from string
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
new Date timestamp vs new Date string
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
new Date timestamp
new Date(1678973400);
new Date string
const str = '2023-03-16' new Date(...str.split('-'))
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
new Date timestamp
new Date string
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; rv:133.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/133.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 133 on Mac OS X 10.15
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=578552" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
new Date timestamp
55312324.0 Ops/sec
new Date string
8649830.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested. **Benchmark Purpose:** The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two ways to create `Date` objects in JavaScript: 1. Using the `new Date()` constructor with a timestamp (in milliseconds). 2. Using the `new Date()` constructor with a string representation of a date, using the `Date.parse()` method. **Tested Options:** There are only two options being compared: 1. **new Date(1678973400);**: This option uses a fixed timestamp to create a new `Date` object. 2. **const str = '2023-03-16'\r\nnew Date(...str.split('-'))\r\n**: This option uses a string representation of a date, split by the hyphen character, and then passes the resulting parts to the `Date()` constructor. **Pros and Cons:** **Option 1 (new Date(1678973400);)** Pros: * Uses a fixed timestamp, which is likely to be more accurate and consistent. * Does not require parsing a string date format. Cons: * May not account for daylight saving time (DST) adjustments or other timezone-related issues. * Requires a specific timestamp value, which may change over time. **Option 2 (const str = '2023-03-16'\r\nnew Date(...str.split('-'))\r\n)** Pros: * Can handle date formats with varying levels of precision and separators. * Does not require a fixed timestamp value. Cons: * May be slower due to the string parsing step. * Requires accurate parsing of the input string date format, which can be error-prone. **Library Usage:** None of the test cases use any external libraries. **Special JS Features/Syntax:** The benchmark uses the following JavaScript feature: * **Template literals**: The `const str = '2023-03-16'\r\nnew Date(...str.split('-'))\r\n` syntax is using a template literal to concatenate strings and split dates. This feature is only available in modern browsers that support ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) or later. **Alternatives:** Other alternatives for creating `Date` objects include: * Using the `Date.now()` method, which returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix epoch (January 1, 1970). * Using a library like Moment.js, which provides a more robust and flexible date parsing and formatting API. * Using the `Date constructor` with a specific timezone offset or DST adjustment. Note that these alternatives may have their own trade-offs in terms of performance, accuracy, and compatibility across different browsers and platforms.
Related benchmarks:
Tick performance
Date.now() vs new Date().valueOf()
Date.now() vs new Date().getTime(qu)
Date.now() vs new Date().toISOString()
Date.now() vs new Date().getTime()1
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?