Benchmark: Random vs Date.now

Script Preparation code:

var timestamp = null;

Tests:

Date.now()
timestamp = Date.now();
Random
timestamp = Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.floor(5000))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Date.now()
Random

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/100.0.4896.75 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 100 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Date.now()	2371027.8 Ops/sec
Random	1391701.5 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 data and explain what is tested, compared, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of two test cases: `Date.now()` and `Random`. The script preparation code for both tests is set to `var timestamp = null;`, which suggests that both tests will measure the execution time of a simple assignment operation. However, the assignment value differs between the two tests.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Date.now()**: This function returns the current timestamp in milliseconds since the Unix Epoch (January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC). In this case, it's used to measure the execution time of a simple assignment operation.
2. **Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.floor(5000))**: This expression generates a random integer between 0 and 5000 using the `Math.random()` function. It's likely used to simulate a more complex operation or to test the browser's ability to handle random values.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Date.now()**:
	* Pros: Easy to understand, widely supported, and fast.
	* Cons: May not accurately represent real-world scenarios where timestamps are not available (e.g., when measuring performance during server-side rendering).
2. **Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.floor(5000))**:
	* Pros: Can simulate more complex operations, tests browser's ability to handle random values.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of generating random numbers, and may not accurately represent real-world scenarios where randomness is not involved.

**Library and Purpose**

In this benchmark, there doesn't seem to be an explicit library being used. However, some libraries like Lodash or Underscore.js might be implicitly included due to their widespread use in JavaScript development. If any library is used, it's likely for utility functions or helper methods that are not directly related to the performance testing.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There doesn't appear to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being tested here (e.g., async/await, Promises, Web Workers).

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark seems to focus on measuring the execution time of simple assignment operations in different browsers and environments.
* It's possible that this benchmark is intended to test the browser's ability to handle random values or simulated complex operations.
* It's worth noting that using `Math.random()` can lead to non-deterministic results due to various factors like system clock drift, hardware-specific issues, or even network effects. This might affect the accuracy of the benchmark.

**Alternative Benchmarks**

Other alternative benchmarks for measuring performance in JavaScript could include:

1. **Sieve of Eratosthenes**: A classic algorithm used to find all primes smaller than a given number.
2. **Fibonacci sequence calculation**: Another classic algorithm that can be used to test performance under load.
3. **Array manipulation and sorting**: Benchmarks like array reversal, sort(), or shuffle() could provide valuable insights into the browser's performance.

Keep in mind that the choice of benchmark ultimately depends on the specific use case, target audience, and goals of the performance testing.

Related benchmarks:

Random vs Date.now (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Date.now() vs Random

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Date.now()

Random

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):