Benchmark: date test each technique

Tests:

Date test A
new Date().getTime();
Date test B
new Date().valueOf();
Date test C
+new Date;
Date test D
new Date()*1;
Date test E
Date.now();
Date test F
Number(new Date());
Date test G
performance.now();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Date test A
Date test B
Date test C
Date test D
Date test E
Date test F
Date test G

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark tests various ways to measure time in JavaScript, specifically how different methods perform when executed repeatedly.

**Options compared:**

1. `new Date().getTime()`
2. `new Date().valueOf()`
3. `+new Date` (concatenation operator)
4. `new Date()*1` (integer multiplication)
5. `Date.now()`
6. `Number(new Date())`
7. `performance.now()`

Each of these options is being tested for its performance, specifically the number of executions per second.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **`new Date().getTime()`**: This method returns the timestamp in milliseconds since the Unix epoch (January 1, 1970). It's widely used, but may not be suitable for measuring short intervals due to potential rounding errors.
2. **`new Date().valueOf()`**: This method returns the timestamp as a long integer value. It's more precise than `getTime()`, but less readable and not as widely supported.
3. **`+new Date`**: This method uses the concatenation operator to create a new date object. It's simple, but may incur overhead due to string creation and concatenation.
4. **`new Date()*1`**: Similar to the previous option, this multiplies the result of `new Date()` by 1 (which is unnecessary) before returning it as an integer. This can introduce precision issues.
5. **`Date.now()`**: This method returns the timestamp in milliseconds since the Unix epoch. It's more modern and widely supported than `getTime()`, but less readable.
6. **`Number(new Date())`**: This method converts the date object to a number value, which may lose precision for shorter intervals.
7. **`performance.now()`**: This method returns the high-resolution timer in milliseconds since the Unix epoch. It's designed specifically for measuring short intervals and is widely supported.

**Library considerations:**

None of the options rely on external libraries, so no specific library-related analysis is needed.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

Some methods (e.g., `Date.now()`) use modern JavaScript features like `now()` which are not available in older browsers. The benchmark results may be skewed if the test runs on an older browser that doesn't support these features.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives to measure time in JavaScript include:

1. Using a dedicated timing library, such as [fast-timer](https://github.com/teh-intelli/fast-timer).
2. Utilizing Web APIs like `requestAnimationFrame()` or `setInterval()`.
3. Implementing a custom high-resolution timer using native APIs.

In summary, each option has its pros and cons, and the choice of which one to use depends on the specific requirements of your project. MeasureThat.net's benchmark helps identify performance differences between these methods, allowing developers to make informed decisions about their code.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Date test A	4495618.0 Ops/sec
Date test B	4447754.0 Ops/sec
Date test C	3443203.8 Ops/sec
Date test D	3365307.2 Ops/sec
Date test E	5951988.0 Ops/sec
Date test F	2472152.0 Ops/sec
Date test G	3183904.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

date test each technique (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Date test A vs Date test B vs Date test C vs Date test D vs Date test E vs Date test F vs Date test G

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Date test A

Date test B

Date test C

Date test D

Date test E

Date test F

Date test G

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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