Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
date test each technique
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Date test A vs Date test B vs Date test C vs Date test D vs Date test E vs Date test F vs Date test G
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Date test A
new Date().getTime();
Date test B
new Date().valueOf();
Date test C
+new Date;
Date test D
new Date()*1;
Date test E
Date.now();
Date test F
Number(new Date());
Date test G
performance.now();
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (7)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Date test A
Date test B
Date test C
Date test D
Date test E
Date test F
Date test G
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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **What is being tested?** The provided benchmark tests various ways to measure time in JavaScript, specifically how different methods perform when executed repeatedly. **Options compared:** 1. `new Date().getTime()` 2. `new Date().valueOf()` 3. `+new Date` (concatenation operator) 4. `new Date()*1` (integer multiplication) 5. `Date.now()` 6. `Number(new Date())` 7. `performance.now()` Each of these options is being tested for its performance, specifically the number of executions per second. **Pros and Cons:** 1. **`new Date().getTime()`**: This method returns the timestamp in milliseconds since the Unix epoch (January 1, 1970). It's widely used, but may not be suitable for measuring short intervals due to potential rounding errors. 2. **`new Date().valueOf()`**: This method returns the timestamp as a long integer value. It's more precise than `getTime()`, but less readable and not as widely supported. 3. **`+new Date`**: This method uses the concatenation operator to create a new date object. It's simple, but may incur overhead due to string creation and concatenation. 4. **`new Date()*1`**: Similar to the previous option, this multiplies the result of `new Date()` by 1 (which is unnecessary) before returning it as an integer. This can introduce precision issues. 5. **`Date.now()`**: This method returns the timestamp in milliseconds since the Unix epoch. It's more modern and widely supported than `getTime()`, but less readable. 6. **`Number(new Date())`**: This method converts the date object to a number value, which may lose precision for shorter intervals. 7. **`performance.now()`**: This method returns the high-resolution timer in milliseconds since the Unix epoch. It's designed specifically for measuring short intervals and is widely supported. **Library considerations:** None of the options rely on external libraries, so no specific library-related analysis is needed. **Special JS features or syntax:** Some methods (e.g., `Date.now()`) use modern JavaScript features like `now()` which are not available in older browsers. The benchmark results may be skewed if the test runs on an older browser that doesn't support these features. **Alternatives:** Other alternatives to measure time in JavaScript include: 1. Using a dedicated timing library, such as [fast-timer](https://github.com/teh-intelli/fast-timer). 2. Utilizing Web APIs like `requestAnimationFrame()` or `setInterval()`. 3. Implementing a custom high-resolution timer using native APIs. In summary, each option has its pros and cons, and the choice of which one to use depends on the specific requirements of your project. MeasureThat.net's benchmark helps identify performance differences between these methods, allowing developers to make informed decisions about their code.
Related benchmarks:
String split date vs parse date
Date clone test
Date() vs Date(YY,MM,DD,hh,mm)
Date comparison Date.now vs new Date
parseDateISO vs parseDate vs parseDateInline
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?