Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
number vs gettime
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
gettime vs number
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
gettime
(new Date()).getTime();
number
Number(new Date())
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
gettime
number
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_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 134 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=597469" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
gettime
15199121.0 Ops/sec
number
9604587.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases. **Benchmark Definition** The `Benchmark Definition` JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that measures the performance difference between two approaches: using the `getTime()` method of the `Date` object versus creating a new `Number` instance from the same value. The benchmark is defined as follows: - `(new Date()).getTime();`: This line creates a new `Date` object and immediately calls its `getTime()` method to get the current timestamp in milliseconds. - `Number(new Date())`: This line creates a new `Date` object and converts it to a `Number` instance using the `Number()` function. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares two options: 1. **Using `getTime()`**: This approach is likely intended to measure the performance of calling the `getTime()` method on a `Date` object. 2. **Creating a new `Number` instance**: This approach creates a new `Number` instance from the same value as the `Date` object, and then immediately discards it. **Pros and Cons** - **Using `getTime()`**: + Pros: Simple to implement, no extra memory allocation or creation. + Cons: May involve additional overhead due to the method call, potentially affecting performance. - **Creating a new `Number` instance**: + Pros: Eliminates any potential overhead from the `getTime()` method call, potentially leading to better performance. + Cons: Requires an extra memory allocation and object creation. In general, creating a new `Number` instance might be more efficient if there's no need to reuse the value. However, in this specific benchmark, it's unlikely that the created `Number` instance would be used elsewhere in the code. **Other Considerations** - The benchmark does not account for potential differences in browser behavior or engine optimizations. - There are no tests for edge cases (e.g., extremely large timestamps) or corner cases (e.g., NaN or Infinity values). **Library Usage** There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the `Benchmark Definition` JSON. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines and browsers may use internal libraries to optimize performance. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** The benchmark uses special JavaScript feature: **new Date()**. This creates a new `Date` object. The `.getTime()` method is also used to get the current timestamp in milliseconds. In modern JavaScript, `new Date()` can be replaced with `performance.now()`, which returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix epoch (January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC). This approach might provide slightly better performance due to reduced overhead from method calls and object creation.
Related benchmarks:
new Date().getTime() vs Date.now()
Date valueOf() vs getTime()
Date.valueOf vs Date.getTime() vs Number
Date valueOf() vs getTime() vs Number()
new Date().getTime() vs Date.parse()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?