Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
console.log test
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
console vs Empty
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
function emptyLog(msg) { }
Tests:
console
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { console.log(`my specific big message consuption ${i}`); }
Empty
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { emptyLog(i); }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
console
Empty
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
8 days ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/150.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome Mobile 150 on Android
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=633416" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Empty
1.1M/s
console
150/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Empty
1,080,536 Ops/sec
console
150 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark. **What is being tested?** The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches to log messages: 1. **Using `console.log`**: This approach involves logging a fixed message with a specific format and incrementing a counter (`i`) inside a loop (1000 iterations). 2. **Using an empty logging function**: In this case, an empty function `emptyLog(msg)` is used as a placeholder for logging purposes. **Options compared** The two options being compared are: * Using `console.log` to log messages * Using an empty function (`emptyLog`) to simulate logging **Pros and Cons of each approach:** Using `console.log`: Pros: * Simple and straightforward * Fast execution, as it's a built-in browser API * Easy to read and understand Cons: * May incur additional overhead due to the string concatenation operation (`"my specific big message consuption ${i}"`) * May impact performance if used extensively in loops or conditional statements Using an empty function: Pros: * Avoids any potential overhead associated with `console.log`, as it's not actually logging anything * Can be useful for simulating logging scenarios without affecting the actual log output Cons: * May seem counterintuitive, as it's using a "logging" function that doesn't perform any actual logging * Requires careful consideration to avoid unintended side effects or performance impacts **Library** The `emptyLog` function is not a standard JavaScript library. It appears to be a custom implementation designed specifically for this benchmark. **Special JS feature or syntax** There are no special JS features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The focus is solely on comparing the performance of two logging approaches. **Other alternatives** If you were to modify this benchmark, other options could include: * Using `console.group` instead of `console.log` * Using a third-party logging library (e.g., Log4js) with varying configurations * Adding noise or variations to the log messages to simulate real-world scenarios Overall, this benchmark provides a simple and effective way to compare the performance of two logging approaches in JavaScript.
Related benchmarks
Console.log
console log benchmark
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?