Benchmark: Date.parse string vs new Date ms

Tests:

new Date
new Date(1725524009);
Date.parse
Date.parse('2024-09-05T09:13:29.335Z');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new Date
Date.parse

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/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
new Date	5945226.0 Ops/sec
Date.parse	3027294.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two JavaScript methods for creating Date objects: `new Date()` and `Date.parse()`. The benchmark is designed to test how quickly these methods execute on modern web browsers.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **`new Date()`**: This method creates a new Date object using its constructor, which takes an optional timestamp as an argument.
2. **`Date.parse()`**: This method parses a string into a timestamp, which can be used to create a Date object.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

*   `new Date()`: Pros:
    *   More readable code (e.g., `new Date('2024-09-05T09:13:29.335Z')` is more explicit).
    *   Can handle various date formats using the timestamp argument.
    *   No additional dependencies required.

Cons:
    *   May be slower due to the construction overhead of a new object.

*   `Date.parse()`:

Pros:
    *   Generally faster, as it can rely on the browser's internal parsing logic.

Cons:
    *   Less readable code (e.g., `Date.parse('2024-09-05T09:13:29.335Z')` might require additional processing).
    *   May not handle all date formats correctly.
    *   Requires an additional dependency (the browser's internal parsing logic).

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require additional explanation. However, it's worth noting that modern browsers have built-in support for various date formats and timestamp parsing through their Date API.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to compare other methods for creating Date objects or testing performance, consider the following alternatives:

*   `Date.now()`: This method returns the current timestamp as a number.
*   `new Intl.DateTimeFormat().resolvedOptions().timeZone`: This method retrieves the user's preferred time zone and formats it into a string that can be used with `Date`.
*   Using external libraries like moment.js or luxon, which provide more advanced date manipulation capabilities.

**Best Practices**

When writing performance benchmarks like this one:

*   Focus on measuring specific use cases to ensure accurate results.
*   Choose relevant test cases and parameters to capture the behavior you want to analyze.
*   Consider using benchmarking frameworks that provide a structured way of writing and running benchmarks, like Benchmark.js or MicroBenchmark.

Keep these best practices in mind when working with performance measurements, ensuring your tests are reliable, informative, and actionable.

Related benchmarks:

Date.parse string vs new Date ms (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: new Date vs Date.parse

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

new Date

Date.parse

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):