Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
new Date from timestamp vs new Date from ISO string
(version: 1)
Comparing performance of:
new Date timestamp vs new Date string
Created:
one year ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
new Date timestamp
new Date(1678973400);
new Date string
new Date('1970-01-20T10:22:53.400Z')
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
new Date timestamp
new Date string
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/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=579552" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
new Date timestamp
34820944.0 Ops/sec
new Date string
8475346.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
gpt-4o-mini
, generated one year ago):
This benchmark compares two different methods of creating a new JavaScript `Date` object: one using a timestamp and the other using an ISO formatted date string. ### Tested Options 1. **Creating a Date from a Timestamp:** - **Test Case**: `new Date(1678973400);` - **Test Name**: "new Date timestamp" 2. **Creating a Date from an ISO String:** - **Test Case**: `new Date('1970-01-20T10:22:53.400Z');` - **Test Name**: "new Date string" ### Performance Results After running the benchmarks, the results showed that creating a Date from a timestamp (`new Date timestamp`) had an execution rate of **34,820,944 executions per second**, while creating a Date from an ISO string (`new Date string`) resulted in **8,475,346 executions per second**. ### Pros and Cons of Each Approach 1. **Date from Timestamp**: - **Pros**: - Generally faster, as indicated by the benchmark results, due to lower overhead in processing. - Straightforward to use when working with time calculations, as it's numeric and does not require string parsing. - **Cons**: - Less human-readable compared to ISO strings, making it harder to debug or understand at a glance. 2. **Date from ISO String**: - **Pros**: - Human-readable format, which makes debugging and logging easier because you can directly see the date and time. - Useful for interoperability with APIs that provide dates in ISO format, ensuring consistency when passing date data. - **Cons**: - Slower performance due to the need for string parsing and validation. - More prone to errors if the string does not conform to the expected ISO format. ### Other Considerations - The choice between these two approaches often depends on the specific requirements of the application. If performance is critical and dates are only manipulated in timestamp format, using the timestamp approach is advisable. However, if clarity of data and interoperability with external services are priorities, the ISO string method would be more appropriate. ### Alternative Approaches There are also other ways to work with dates in JavaScript, such as: 1. **Using libraries like Moment.js or date-fns**: These libraries provide a rich set of features for date manipulation, formatting, and parsing. While they can enhance functionality, they may introduce additional complexity and bloat to your project. 2. **Using Native Intl.DateTimeFormat**: This is useful for formatting dates in different locales, which could be essential for applications that need to display dates in various formats according to user settings. 3. **New Temporal API**: The Temporal API (still being developed) is designed to provide a more robust date and time handling mechanism, addressing many of the limitations of the native Date object. It offers better handling of time zones, calendar systems, and durations. In conclusion, selecting between creating a `Date` from a timestamp or an ISO string depends on performance needs versus clarity and interoperability, with several alternatives available that cater to varying development requirements.
Related benchmarks:
new Date from UNIX timestamp vs new Date from ISO string
Date.parse vs new Date (ISO format)
new Date from UNIX timestamp (ms) vs new Date from ISO string
new Date from UNIX timestamp vs ISO string
Date() vs Date(YY,MM,DD,hh,mm)
Date.parse vs new Date ISO
Date Creation: TEST 2
creating Date from data
Date Creation awertwerewrqw
new Date(date) vs new Date(normalizeToLocalDate(date)) 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?