Benchmark: Compare Date cloning via object or timestamp

Script Preparation code:

origDate = new Date();

Tests:

Clone Date object
new Date(origDate)
Clone via Timestamp
new Date(origDate.getTime())

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Clone Date object
Clone via Timestamp

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated yesterday):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that describes the experiment. In this case, it's testing two approaches for cloning dates:

1. `new Date(origDate)` ( Clone Date object )
2. `new Date(origDate.getTime())` ( Clone via Timestamp )

The script preparation code initializes an original date variable `origDate` using the `new Date()` constructor.

**Options Compared:**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Cloning a date object**: Creating a new date object by passing the original date as an argument to the `new Date()` constructor.
2. **Cloning via timestamp**: Creating a new date object by passing the timestamp of the original date (obtained using `getTime()`) as an argument to the `new Date()` constructor.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Cloning a date object**:
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward approach.
	* Cons: May incur additional overhead due to the creation of a new object, which can lead to performance penalties in some cases.
2. **Cloning via timestamp**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient since it avoids creating an intermediate object.
	* Cons: Requires careful handling of the timestamp value, as it may not accurately represent the original date.

**Library Used:**

None is explicitly mentioned in this benchmark definition.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

The `getTime()` method is used to obtain the timestamp of a Date object. This method returns the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC.

**Other Considerations:**

When comparing these two approaches, it's essential to consider factors like:

* Memory allocation and garbage collection
* Execution time and overhead
* Browser-specific optimizations or quirks

**Alternatives:**

If you wanted to explore alternative approaches for cloning dates, you could try:

1. Using a library like Lodash (`lodash.cloneDate`) or Moment.js (moment.clone())
2. Creating a custom date-cloning function using bitwise operations or other techniques.
3. Comparing different JavaScript engines or browsers' performance characteristics.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case, requirements, and performance constraints.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 15 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Clone Date object	6634781.0 Ops/sec
Clone via Timestamp	6599118.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Compare Date cloning via object or timestamp (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Clone Date object vs Clone via Timestamp

Created: 15 days ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Clone Date object

Clone via Timestamp

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated yesterday):