Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date.getTime()
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
with getTime vs without getTime
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
date = new Date(); dateTime = date.getTime();
Tests:
with getTime
console.log(date.getTime());
without getTime
console.log(dateTime);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
with getTime
without getTime
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 MeasureThat.net, a fascinating platform for benchmarking JavaScript microbenchmarks. **Benchmark Definition** The provided JSON represents a single benchmark definition. Here's what it tests: * The `Name` property specifies the name of the benchmark: "Date.getTime()". * The `Description` property is left blank, but it could be a brief description or explanation of the test. * The `Script Preparation Code` section sets up an initial value for the variable `date`, which will be used later in the test. This code creates a new instance of the `Date` object and assigns its current time to the `date` variable using the `getTime()` method. * The `Html Preparation Code` section is empty, indicating that no HTML setup is required for this benchmark. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares two approaches: 1. **With getTime**: This test case executes the code `console.log(date.getTime());`, which directly accesses the `getTime()` method of the `date` object. 2. **Without getTime**: This test case executes the code `console.log(dateTime);`, where `dateTime` is a variable that was assigned a value in the script preparation code. **Pros and Cons** The choice between these two approaches depends on various factors, including performance considerations and personal coding style: * **With getTime**: This approach directly accesses the `getTime()` method, which can be more efficient since it avoids unnecessary object lookups. However, it may lead to slower performance if the browser has to parse the date string further. * **Without getTime**: By reusing the already calculated value of `dateTime`, this approach avoids additional parsing and potentially faster execution. However, it relies on the script preparation code setting up a valid value for `dateTime`. **Library** In this benchmark, no specific JavaScript library is used beyond the built-in `Date` object. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** The use of `getTime()` in the `Date` object is a special feature of JavaScript. It returns the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC. **Alternative Approaches** Other alternatives to consider: * Using a different date format or library (e.g., Moment.js) might alter the results. * Accessing `date.getTime()` in a different order (e.g., `dateTime = date.getTime(); console.log(dateTime);`) could affect performance. * Optimizing the script preparation code or HTML setup might improve execution times. Keep in mind that these alternatives will likely result in different benchmark results, so it's essential to test and compare them using MeasureThat.net or similar tools.
Related benchmarks:
Date.now() vs + new Date() vs new Date.getTime()
toISOString and literalISO
Date.now() vs new Date().getTime() vs performance.now() vs Date().toString();
Date.now() vs new Date().getTime() vs cast new Date()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?