Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date.parse vs new Date - timestamps unix
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
new Date vs Date.parse
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
new Date
new Date('01/01/2001') / 1e3 | 0;
Date.parse
Date.parse('01/01/2001') / 1e3 | 0;
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Purpose** The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches: using `Date` objects (specifically, creating a new `Date` object with a specific date string) versus using `Date.parse()` function. The focus is on measuring how these approaches affect execution speed and throughput in modern web browsers. **Options Compared** Two main options are being compared: 1. **new Date**: This approach creates a new `Date` object, specifying a date string (in this case, "01/01/2001") and then divides the result by 1e3 to convert it to milliseconds. The resulting value is then rounded to 0. 2. **Date.parse()**: This approach uses the `Date.parse()` function, passing the same date string as an argument, and then divides the result by 1e3 to convert it to milliseconds. **Pros and Cons** Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons for each approach: * **new Date**: + Pros: Creates a new `Date` object, which might be more intuitive for developers. It allows for easy date arithmetic. + Cons: Can be slower due to the creation of a new object, especially when used in conjunction with other operations that require additional memory allocation or copying. * **Date.parse()**: + Pros: Efficiently converts a string to a Date object without creating an intermediate `Date` object. This can lead to better performance, especially when dealing with large datasets. + Cons: May be less intuitive for developers, as it requires knowledge of the specific function and its behavior. **Library/Function Used** In this benchmark, no external libraries are used beyond the built-in JavaScript functions (`Date`, `Date.parse()`). However, it's worth noting that some browsers might have additional optimizations or features that affect the performance of these functions. **Special JS Feature/Syntax (None)** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The code is straightforward and follows standard JavaScript practices. **Alternative Approaches** Other approaches to compare the performance of date conversions in JavaScript might include: * Using `new Date().setDate(1, 0, 1)` instead of creating a new `Date` object * Utilizing libraries like Moment.js or Luxon for date manipulation and parsing * Implementing custom date conversion functions using bitwise operations Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be directly comparable to the original benchmark, as they may introduce additional overhead or differences in behavior. I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark's purpose and the options being compared!
Related benchmarks:
new Date from UNIX timestamp vs new Date from ISO string
Date.parse vs new Date3
new Date from UNIX timestamp (ms) vs new Date from ISO string
new Date(Date.parse()) vs new Date
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?