Benchmark: console.log - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

with native log
for(var i=0; i<1000; i++){ console.log('here') }
with empty function
var console = { log: function(){} } for(var i=0; i<1000; i++){ console.log('here') }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
with native log
with empty function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/123.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
with native log	55.5 Ops/sec
with empty function	818915.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is measuring the performance of two approaches to outputting logs in a JavaScript environment:

1. Using the built-in `console.log` function (native log)
2. Creating an empty `log` function within a custom `console` object (empty function)

**What's being tested?**

The benchmark is testing the speed and efficiency of these two approaches when logging a string "here" 1000 times in a loop.

**Options compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Native Log**: Using the built-in `console.log` function, which is part of the JavaScript language standard.
2. **Empty Function**: Creating an empty `log` function within a custom `console` object. This approach requires additional code to implement the log functionality.

**Pros and Cons**

**Native Log**

Pros:

* Faster execution time: Since it's a built-in function, it's likely to be implemented in native code, making it faster.
* Less code to write: No need to create an empty `log` function or manage its implementation details.

Cons:

* Limited control: The behavior of the built-in `console.log` function might not be fully customizable.
* Not applicable for custom logging needs: If you want to implement custom log formatting, buffering, or other features, this approach won't work.

**Empty Function**

Pros:

* More control: You can customize the behavior and implementation details of your custom `log` function.
* Reusable: This approach is more versatile, as it can be applied to different logging scenarios.

Cons:

* Slower execution time: Creating an empty `log` function requires additional code, which might lead to slower performance compared to the native log.
* More code to write: You need to create and implement the custom `log` function, which adds overhead.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, a library is not explicitly mentioned. However, it's worth noting that MeasureThat.net often uses libraries like V8 (Google's JavaScript engine) or SpiderMonkey ( Mozilla's JavaScript engine) for benchmarking purposes.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. It's a straightforward comparison of two basic approaches to outputting logs.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to measure the performance of logging functions include:

* Using a logging library like Log4js, Winston, or Bunyan.
* Implementing custom logging using native code (e.g., using C++ for high-performance applications).
* Utilizing async logging mechanisms, which can introduce additional overhead but offer more flexibility.

Keep in mind that benchmarking is an ongoing process, and new benchmarks are added to MeasureThat.net regularly. This explanation aims to provide a general understanding of the benchmark's purpose and insights into the options being compared.

Related benchmarks:

console.log (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: with native log vs with empty function

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

with native log

with empty function

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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