Benchmark: Date to Unix time: 2

Tests:

~~ direct
~~(new Date() / 1000)
~~ +
~~(+new Date() / 1000)
~~ getTime
~~(new Date().getTime() / 1000)
floor direct
Math.floor(new Date() / 1000)
floor +
Math.floor(+new Date() / 1000)
floor getTime
Math.floor(new Date().getTime() / 1000)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
~~ direct
~~ +
~~ getTime
floor direct
floor +
floor getTime

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 128 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
~~ direct	1227282.0 Ops/sec
~~ +	1293697.1 Ops/sec
~~ getTime	1777506.8 Ops/sec
floor direct	819820.8 Ops/sec
floor +	822210.5 Ops/sec
floor getTime	901412.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**What is tested?**

MeasureThat.net tests various ways to convert a Date object in JavaScript to Unix time (a number representing the number of seconds since January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC). The website provides a simple benchmarking framework that allows users to compare the performance of different approaches.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares four options for converting a Date object to Unix time:

1. **~~(new Date() / 1000)**: This option uses the unary minus operator (`-`) to negate the result of `new Date()` divided by 1000.
2. **~~(+new Date() / 1000)**: Similar to the previous option, but it explicitly converts the date part of the `Date` object to a number using the unary plus operator (`+`).
3. **Math.floor(new Date() / 1000)**: This option uses the built-in `Math.floor()` function to round down the result of `new Date()` divided by 1000.
4. **Math.floor(+new Date() / 1000)**: Similar to the previous option, but it explicitly converts the date part of the `Date` object to a number using the unary plus operator (`+`) and then uses `Math.floor()`.

**Pros and Cons**

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

1. **~~(new Date() / 1000)**:
	* Pros: Simple and concise, no additional function calls.
	* Cons: May lose precision due to unary minus operator's behavior in older browsers or with very large dates.
2. **~~(+new Date() / 1000)**:
	* Pros: More accurate than the previous option by explicitly converting the date part to a number.
	* Cons: Adds an extra function call, which may impact performance.
3. **Math.floor(new Date() / 1000)**:
	* Pros: Uses a built-in function and is more robust than the previous options.
	* Cons: May lose precision if `new Date()` returns a value that's too large for `Math.floor()` to handle.
4. **Math.floor(+new Date() / 1000)**:
	* Pros: Combines the benefits of the previous two options, with explicit conversion and built-in function usage.
	* Cons: Adds another extra function call.

**Library and syntax**

The benchmark doesn't use any external libraries. The `Date` object is a native JavaScript object.

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark beyond what's commonly available in modern JavaScript engines.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to optimize the conversion of a Date object to Unix time, consider using the following approaches:

* Use `Date.now()` instead of `new Date() / 1000`, as it returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix epoch (January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC).
* Use a library like Moment.js or Luxon, which provide more advanced date formatting and conversion capabilities.
* Consider using WebAssembly (WASM) or other performance-oriented JavaScript engines to optimize the benchmark.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have additional dependencies, complexity, or performance trade-offs.

Related benchmarks:

Date to Unix time: 2 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: direct vs + vs ~~ getTime vs floor direct vs floor + vs floor getTime

Created: 4 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

~~ direct

~~ +

~~ getTime

floor direct

floor +

floor getTime

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Date to Unix time: 2 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: ~~ direct vs ~~ + vs ~~ getTime vs floor direct vs floor + vs floor getTime

Created: 4 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

~~ direct

~~ +

~~ getTime

floor direct

floor +

floor getTime

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Comparing performance of: direct vs + vs ~~ getTime vs floor direct vs floor + vs floor getTime