Benchmark: Date clone test - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var t = new Date()

Tests:

getTime
new Date(t.getTime())
getYear
new Date(t.getYear(), t.getMonth(), t.getDate())

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
getTime
getYear

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark, named "Date clone test", measures the performance difference between creating a new Date object by using either the `getTime()` method or the `getYear()`, `getMonth()`, and `getDate()` methods. The benchmark aims to determine which approach is faster for cloning a Date object.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code initializes a new Date object, `t`, with the current date and time using `var t = new Date()`. This sets up the starting point for the benchmark.

**Html Preparation Code**

The html preparation code is empty (`null`), indicating that no additional HTML setup is required before running the benchmark.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **getTime**: This test case measures the performance of creating a new Date object by calling `new Date(t.getTime())`.
2. **getYear**: This test case measures the performance of creating a new Date object by passing separate year, month, and date values using `new Date(t.getYear(), t.getMonth(), t.getDate())`.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **getTime**: Calls `t.getTime()` to get the timestamp value and then creates a new Date object with this timestamp.
2. **getYear**, **getMonth**, and **getDate**: Calls each method separately to extract the year, month, and date values from `t` and then passes these values to create a new Date object.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **getTime**:
	* Pros: Faster, as it only requires one function call.
	* Cons: Requires parsing the timestamp value, which may be slower for large dates.
2. **getYear**, **getMonth**, and **getDate**:
	* Pros: Easier to read and maintain, as each method extracts a specific part of the date object separately.
	* Cons: Slower, as three separate function calls are required.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses no external libraries. It relies solely on built-in JavaScript methods to create Date objects.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. However, it does use the `getTime()` method, which is a standard feature of the Date object. No additional context is required to understand its usage.

**Other Alternatives**

Alternative approaches for creating Date objects might include:

1. Using a library like Moment.js, which provides more advanced date manipulation and formatting capabilities.
2. Using a JavaScript module like `luxon` or `date-fns`, which offer alternative methods for working with dates in JavaScript.
3. Implementing custom date creation logic, but this would likely be slower than the built-in methods used here.

Overall, the benchmark focuses on comparing two common approaches to creating Date objects in JavaScript and provides a simple test bed for evaluating performance differences between these alternatives.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:93.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/93.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 93 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
getTime	11899710.0 Ops/sec
getYear	3460496.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Date clone test (version: 0)

test Date(ts) vs Date(yy, mm, dd)

Comparing performance of: getTime vs getYear

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

getTime

getYear

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):