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
Jump 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>
Test name
Executions per second
new Date
2112768.2 Ops/sec
Date.parse
5019754.0 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:
Date.parse vs new Date3
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?