Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
number vs gettime
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
Comparing performance of:
gettime vs number
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Go 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>
gettime
15.2M/s
number
9.6M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
gettime
15,199,121 Ops/sec
number
9,604,587 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()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?