Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date.valueOf vs Date.getTime() vs Number
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
getTime vs valueOf vs Number(new Date())
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
getTime
const a = new Date().getTime()
valueOf
const a = new Date().valueOf()
Number(new Date())
Number(new Date())
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
getTime
valueOf
Number(new Date())
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:132.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/132.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 132 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=565716" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
getTime
9447512.0 Ops/sec
valueOf
9647604.0 Ops/sec
Number(new Date())
5612490.5 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and analyze what's being tested. The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark created on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark is testing three different approaches to get the current time in milliseconds: `Date.valueOf()`, `Date.getTime()`, and `Number(new Date())`. **Options Compared** * `Date.valueOf()`: This method returns the value of the Date object as an integer. * `Date.getTime()`: This method returns the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC. * `Number(new Date())`: This expression converts the current Date object to a number. **Pros and Cons** * `Date.valueOf()`: This method is faster than `Date.getTime()` because it's a simple integer conversion. However, it may not be as accurate due to potential issues with date arithmetic and locale-specific formatting. * `Date.getTime()`: This method provides more accuracy and precision compared to `Date.valueOf()` but is slower due to the additional calculations involved. * `Number(new Date())`: This expression is the slowest of the three because it involves creating a new Date object, which can be expensive in terms of performance. **Library** None. The benchmark doesn't use any external libraries. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark. **Other Considerations** When running benchmarks like this, consider the following factors: * **Cache effects**: Are you using a cache to store previous results? This can affect performance. * **Library dependencies**: Are there any libraries that might impact performance? * **Browser-specific behavior**: Some browsers may behave differently due to their implementation of JavaScript features. **Alternative Benchmarks** If you're interested in benchmarking different approaches to getting the current time, consider these alternatives: * `Date.now()`: This method returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix Epoch (January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC). * `performance.now()`: This method returns the high-resolution timestamp in milliseconds. * Using a dedicated timing library like `microtime()` or `PerformanceObserver`. In conclusion, this benchmark provides a simple comparison of three different approaches to getting the current time in JavaScript. The results indicate that `Date.getTime()` is generally faster than `Date.valueOf()`, but `Number(new Date())` is the slowest due to its overhead.
Related benchmarks:
Date valueOf() vs getTime()
Date valueOf() vs getTime() vs Number()
new Date().getTime() vs Date.parse()
new Date().getTimer() vs Date.parse()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?