Benchmark: Date.now() vs Performance.measure() (Updated)

Script Preparation code:

var times = [];

Tests:

performance.mark
var i = Math.random() + '' + Date.now(); performance.mark(i + 'start'); performance.mark(i + 'end' );
Date.now
var i = Math.random() + '' + Date.now(); times.push(Date.now() + 'start' + i); times.push(Date.now() + 'end' + i);
performance.mark + performance.measure
var i = Math.random() + '' + Date.now(); performance.mark(i + 'start'); performance.mark(i + 'end' ); performance.measure(i, i + 'start', i + 'end')
performance.measure
const now = performance.now(); performance.measure('measure', { start: now - 1000, end: now, detail: { some: 'detail' } });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
performance.mark
Date.now
performance.mark + performance.measure
performance.measure

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 break down the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by the JSON provided, which includes:

* The name and description of the benchmark
* The script preparation code: `var times = [];`
* No HTML preparation code (`null`)

This suggests that the benchmark measures the execution time of various JavaScript functions, but without any specific HTML structure to render.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of four test cases:

1. **performance.mark**
	* The script marks two points: `i + 'start'` and `i + 'end'`
	* It does not specify a duration for the measurement
	* This suggests that it tests the overhead of marking performance events without any specific timing control
2. **Date.now()**
	* The script pushes two values to an array using `Date.now()` with and without the `start` and `end` suffixes
	* It does not specify a duration for the measurement
	* This suggests that it tests the overhead of calling `Date.now()` in different ways (with or without suffixes)
3. **performance.mark + performance.measure**
	* The script marks two points: `i + 'start'` and `i + 'end'`
	* It also measures the execution time using `performance.measure()`, passing an object with a duration (`start`-to-`end`) and a detail object
	* This suggests that it tests the overhead of both marking performance events and measuring execution times in different ways
4. **performance.measure**
	* The script uses `const now = performance.now()` to get the current time
	* It then calls `performance.measure()`, passing an object with:
		+ A duration (`start`-to-`end`) defined by the current time and a fixed offset (-1000ms)
		+ A detail object with a single property `some: 'detail'`
	* This suggests that it tests the overhead of using `performance.measure()` with different settings, including durations and detail objects

**Library: Performance**

The benchmark uses the Web API's `Performance` interface, which provides methods for measuring performance-related metrics:

* `mark()`: Marks a specific point in time to enable later measurements
* `measure()`: Measures the execution time between two marked points or using an explicit duration
* `now()`: Returns the current high-resolution timestamp

The `performance.measure()` method is particularly interesting, as it allows for specifying durations and detail objects. The use of an object with a fixed offset (-1000ms) suggests that this benchmark is testing how accurate the measurement is when using relative timing.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1. **performance.mark**: Simple, lightweight, but does not specify a duration for the measurement.
	* Pros: Low overhead, easy to implement
	* Cons: May not provide accurate results due to lack of timing control
2. **Date.now()**: Calls `Date.now()` in different ways (with or without suffixes).
	* Pros: Tests the overhead of calling `Date.now()` in various contexts
	* Cons: Does not account for any potential bias in the measurements
3. **performance.mark + performance.measure**: Combines marking and measuring performance events.
	* Pros: Provides more accurate results than `performance.mark` alone, as it uses a relative timing mechanism
	* Cons: More complex setup, potentially higher overhead due to the additional method call
4. **performance.measure**: Tests using `performance.measure()` with different settings (duration, detail object).
	* Pros: Allows for detailed analysis of performance measurement accuracy and behavior
	* Cons: May be more challenging to set up and interpret due to the complex configuration options.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to design an alternative benchmarking setup for JavaScript performance measurements, you might consider:

1. Using a different library or API (e.g., `requestAnimationFrame()`, `setInterval()` with precise timing)
2. Implementing custom timing mechanisms instead of relying on the Web API
3. Focusing on specific aspects of performance measurement, such as memory allocation or garbage collection

However, MeasureThat.net's approach provides a good starting point for analyzing JavaScript performance and comparing different methods for marking and measuring performance events.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; SAMSUNG SM-J810G) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) SamsungBrowser/16.0 Chrome/92.0.4515.166 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 92 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
performance.mark	11210.3 Ops/sec
Date.now	44211.5 Ops/sec
performance.mark + performance.measure	8591.5 Ops/sec
performance.measure	21988.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Date.now() vs Performance.measure() (Updated) (version: 0)

Performance measure can be slow???

Comparing performance of: performance.mark vs Date.now vs performance.mark + performance.measure vs performance.measure

Created: 4 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

performance.mark

Date.now

performance.mark + performance.measure

performance.measure

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):