Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date.parse vs new Date with comparison
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
new Date vs Date.parse
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
new Date
new Date('01/01/2001') > new Date('02/02/2002');
Date.parse
Date.parse('01/01/2001') > Date.parse('02/02/2002');
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:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:138.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/138.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 138 on Linux
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=603460" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Date.parse
5.0M/s
new Date
2.1M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Date.parse
5,019,754 Ops/sec
new Date
2,112,768 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents two test cases: `new Date` and `Date.parse`. The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches to create a date object in JavaScript. **Options compared** Two options are being compared: 1. **`new Date('01/01/2001')`**: This approach uses the `new Date()` constructor with a string argument representing a date. 2. **`Date.parse('01/01/2001')`**: This approach uses the `Date.parse()` method, which parses a string into a number representing the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC. **Pros and Cons** * **`new Date('01/01/2001')`** + Pros: - More readable code - Can be more intuitive for developers familiar with date formats + Cons: - May be slower due to the overhead of parsing the string - Less efficient than `Date.parse()` in terms of CPU cycles * **`Date.parse('01/01/2001')`** + Pros: - More efficient than `new Date()` - Faster execution times + Cons: - Less readable code (depending on the specific format used) - May require more expertise in date formats and parsing **Library: Lodash** None of the test cases explicitly uses a library. However, if we look at the `Date.parse()` method, it's likely that some JavaScript implementations (e.g., Node.js) use a library like Lodash to implement this function. **Special JS feature or syntax** The benchmark doesn't specifically mention any special features or syntax related to the test cases. The focus is on comparing two common approaches for creating date objects in JavaScript. **Other alternatives** For testing similar benchmarks, you might consider: * Using `Date.now()` instead of `new Date()` * Comparing performance with different date formats (e.g., ISO 8601) * Adding more test cases to cover various edge cases or browser variations * Exploring other libraries or frameworks for creating date objects (e.g., Moment.js)
Related benchmarks
new Date(Date.parse()) vs new Date
Date.parse vs string date comparsion
Date.parse vs new Date with ISO 8601 format
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?