Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date.parse vs new Date in milliseconds
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
new Date vs Date.parse
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
new Date
new Date(315532800000);
Date.parse
Date.parse(315532800000);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
new Date
Date.parse
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):
I'd be happy to help explain the provided benchmark. **What is being tested?** The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: creating a new `Date` object using the constructor (`new Date()`) and parsing a date string using the `Date.parse()` method. The test case uses a fixed timestamp value of 315532800000, which represents a specific date in the past. **Options compared** The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: 1. **Creating a new `Date` object**: This approach involves calling the `new Date()` constructor with a given timestamp value. 2. **Parsing a date string using `Date.parse()`: This approach involves passing a fixed date string to the `Date.parse()` method. **Pros and Cons** **Creating a new `Date` object:** Pros: * More readable and maintainable code, as it explicitly creates a new date object with a specific timestamp. * Can be useful in scenarios where you need to work with dates in a more explicit way. Cons: * May incur additional overhead due to the constructor call, potentially affecting performance. **Parsing a date string using `Date.parse()`:** Pros: * Often faster, as it leverages the browser's internal parsing logic. * Can be useful when working with dates from external sources or JSON data. Cons: * Less readable and maintainable code, as it relies on a fixed timestamp value that may not be immediately clear to others. * May return incorrect results if the input date string is malformed. **Other considerations** The benchmark also measures the number of executions per second for each approach. This helps determine which method is more performant in terms of raw speed. **Library usage** In this case, no external libraries are used. The `Date` object and its methods are part of the JavaScript standard library. **Special JS feature or syntax** There isn't any special JS feature or syntax being tested here. It's purely a comparison of two basic date-related methods. **Benchmark preparation code** The provided "Script Preparation Code" is empty, which means that no additional setup or configuration is required before running the benchmark. **Other alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, some other options might include: * Using the `Date.now()` method to create a new date object. * Utilizing a library like Moment.js for date manipulation and parsing. * Considering native Web API methods, such as `Intl.DateTimeFormat` or `DateTimeFormat`, for more advanced date-related tasks. Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be directly relevant to this specific benchmark, but they might be worth exploring if you're interested in optimizing date-related code.
Related benchmarks:
Date.parse vs new Date3
Date.parse vs new Date().getTime()
new Date(Date.parse()) vs new Date
new Date().getTime() vs Date.parse()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?