Benchmark: convert date to millis

Tests:

getTime()
new Date().getTime()
+ conversion
+(new Date())
Number()
Number(new Date())

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
getTime()
+ conversion
Number()

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 provided benchmark JSON and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark definition is represented by a JSON object with the following properties:

* `Name`: A unique name for the benchmark, which in this case is "convert date to millis".
* `Description`: A brief description of what the benchmark measures, which is the execution time of converting a Date object to a milliseconds timestamp.
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: These properties are empty, indicating that no specific setup code needs to be executed before running the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**
The test cases are represented by an array of objects, each with the following properties:

* `Benchmark Definition`: The JavaScript expression that will be used to measure performance. In this case, there are three test cases:
	+ `getTime()`: Measures the execution time of calling the `getTime()` method on a new Date object.
	+ `+ conversion`: Measures the execution time of adding 1 to the result of `(new Date())`.
	+ `Number()` : Measures the execution time of converting a Date object to a number using the unary `Number()` function.

**Library Usage**
None of the test cases use any external libraries, which is good because it allows for clean and unbiased measurements.

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax**
The following special JavaScript features/syntax are used in the benchmark:

* The `+` operator before `(new Date())` is an example of a bitwise right shift operation on a signed integer. While this is not a common use case, it's interesting to note that the browser still needs to perform some kind of arithmetic operation.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**
Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* `getTime()`: This approach is simple and straightforward. However, it may not be the most accurate way to measure performance because modern browsers have optimized Date objects for efficient timestamp retrieval.
* `+ conversion`: This approach uses a slightly more complex arithmetic operation to convert the date object to milliseconds. While this might add some overhead, it's still a relatively simple operation that can provide useful insights into the browser's performance.
* `Number()`: This approach converts the date object to a number using the unary `Number()` function. This is another way to achieve the same result as the `getTime()` method but may be less efficient due to additional overhead.

**Other Alternatives**
If these test cases were not sufficient, other alternatives could include:

* Measuring the performance of different timestamp formats (e.g., ISO 8601, RFC 2822) or date string representations.
* Comparing the performance of different browser engines (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey).
* Using more complex benchmarking scenarios that involve multiple steps, loops, or conditional statements.

I hope this explanation helps!

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
getTime()	167812.0 Ops/sec
+ conversion	148050.5 Ops/sec
Number()	119833.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

convert date to millis (version: 0)

millis timestamp in Date object

Comparing performance of: getTime() vs + conversion vs Number()

Created: 3 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

getTime()

+ conversion

Number()

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):