Benchmark: Date object - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Date.now
Date.now()
new Date()
(new Date()).getTime()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Date.now
new Date()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/89.0.4389.90 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 89 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Date.now	2241387.2 Ops/sec
new Date()	1785209.9 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a specific operation to be measured, which in this case are two JavaScript functions that return the number of milliseconds since the Unix epoch:

1. `Date.now()`
2. `(new Date()).getTime()` (also known as the "JavaScript Date object" method)

These functions create a new Date object and return its timestamp.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. `Date.now()`: A static method on the Date constructor that returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix epoch.
2. `(new Date()).getTime()`: A method on the JavaScript Date object itself, which also returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix epoch.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`Date.now()`**: Pros:
	+ Faster execution (around 5-10% faster than the alternative).
	+ More concise and readable syntax.
	+ Fewer dependencies (only requires the `Date` constructor).
Cons: Some older JavaScript engines might have issues with this method, but that's unlikely to affect modern browsers like Chrome 89.
* ** `(new Date()).getTime()`**: Pros:
	+ Consistent behavior across different JavaScript implementations.
	+ Can be useful for more complex date-related calculations.
Cons: Slower execution (around 5-10% slower than the alternative), and less readable syntax.

**Other Considerations**

Both methods create a new Date object, which might seem like overkill. However, this is likely done to ensure that the timestamp is accurate and not affected by factors like system time or timezone differences.

If you're concerned about the performance difference between these two options, consider using `Date.now()` in most cases, as its execution speed is comparable to the alternative method.

**Libraries**

There are no libraries mentioned in this benchmark definition. However, if you're interested in exploring other date-related libraries for JavaScript, some popular ones include:

* Lodash's `moment.js` for more advanced date calculations.
* Moment.js itself for a comprehensive set of date utilities.
* Date-fns for simple and fast date manipulation.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark definition. It only relies on standard JavaScript functions and objects.

As the test user, if you're curious about exploring other specialized libraries or techniques, I recommend checking out the documentation for Moment.js or Date-fns to see how they can enhance your date-related programming tasks!

Related benchmarks:

Date object (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Date.now vs new Date()

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Date.now

new Date()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 months ago):