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

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')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**What is tested?**

The provided benchmark tests three different approaches to measure execution time in JavaScript:

1. `Date.now()`: This approach uses the built-in `Date` object to get the current timestamp, which represents the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC.
2. `performance.mark()`: This approach uses the Web Performance API, specifically the `performance.mark()` function, to create a snapshot of the execution time. It returns a unique token that can be used to measure the execution time later on.
3. `performance.mark() + performance.measure()`: This approach combines both `performance.mark()` and `performance.measure()` functions to measure the execution time.

**Options compared**

The three approaches are compared in terms of their:

* **Accuracy**: How close is the measured execution time to the actual execution time?
* **Speed**: How fast is each approach when executing the benchmark?
* **Complexity**: How much code and setup is required for each approach?

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. `Date.now()`:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and relatively fast.
	* Cons: May not be accurate due to clock skew or other factors that can affect the timestamp.
2. `performance.mark()`: 
	* Pros: More accurate than `Date.now()` since it measures a specific execution time interval.
	* Cons: Requires Web Performance API support, which may not be available in older browsers.
3. `performance.mark() + performance.measure()`:
	* Pros: Combines the accuracy of `performance.mark()` with the speed of `performance.measure()`.
	* Cons: Adds an extra step to the benchmarking process, which can introduce overhead.

**Libraries and special features**

In this benchmark, no specific libraries are used beyond the built-in Web Performance API. However, it's worth noting that other libraries or frameworks may affect the performance or accuracy of these approaches.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax**

The `performance` object is a part of the Web Performance API, which provides tools for measuring and analyzing web page performance. The `mark()` and `measure()` functions are part of this API. These features are specific to modern browsers that support the Web Performance API.

**Other alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to measuring execution time in JavaScript include:

* Using a timer function (e.g., `setInterval()`) with a fixed interval.
* Utilizing a library like Benchmark.js or jsperf for benchmarking.
* Implementing a custom timing mechanism using web workers, canvas, or other techniques.

Keep in mind that each alternative approach has its pros and cons, and the choice of method depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and target audience.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 23 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:131.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/131.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 131 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
performance.mark	231762.9 Ops/sec
Date.now	918727.2 Ops/sec
performance.mark + performance.measure	146893.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Date.now() vs Performance.measure() (version: 2)

Performance measure can be slow

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

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

performance.mark

Date.now

performance.mark + performance.measure

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):