Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Console.log impact on performance
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Without console vs With console
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Without console
const list = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]; for (let i = 0; i < list.length; i++) { var sum = i + 1; }
With console
const list = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]; for (let i = 0; i < list.length; i++) { var sum = i + 1; console.log(sum); }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Without console
With console
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **What is being tested?** The provided benchmark tests the performance impact of logging output to the console using `console.log()` in two different scenarios: 1. Without `console.log()`: This test case creates a list of numbers and iterates over it, calculating the sum of each element. The `console.log()` function is not used. 2. With `console.log()`: This test case is similar to the first one, but with the addition of logging the calculated sum using `console.log()`. **Options compared** The two test cases compare the performance difference between running JavaScript code without logging output and with logging output. In other words: * **Without console**: This option measures the execution time of the code without the overhead of logging output. * **With console**: This option measures the execution time of the code while accounting for the additional overhead introduced by logging output. **Pros and Cons** * **Without console**: + Pros: Faster execution times, as logging output is not included in the calculation. + Cons: May not accurately represent real-world scenarios where logging output is necessary. * **With console**: + Pros: More accurate representation of real-world performance, as logging output is a common practice in many applications. + Cons: Slower execution times due to the additional overhead introduced by logging output. **Library and syntax** There are no external libraries used in these test cases. However, JavaScript's built-in `console` object is being tested. No special JavaScript features or syntax are being tested in this benchmark. **Other alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few examples: * **Profiling**: Instead of measuring execution time, you could profile the code to identify performance bottlenecks. This involves analyzing the call stack and runtime behavior. * **Micro-benchmarking libraries**: Tools like Benchmark.js or jsperf provide more advanced features for writing microbenchmarks, such as support for multiple benchmark types and more accurate measurement techniques. Keep in mind that MeasureThat.net is specifically designed to test the performance impact of logging output, so these alternatives may not be directly applicable to this specific use case.
Related benchmarks:
Console.log vs Empty log
.length vs var
Array.forEach vs Object.keys().forEach
with loggingbut better
Console.log string vs object
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?