Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
console.log
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
console.log
Comparing performance of:
1 vs 2
Created:
8 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
1
console.log("foo bar");
2
console.log("foo bar");
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
1
2
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 134 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=591840" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
1
64K/s
2
63K/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
1
63,896 Ops/sec
2
63,133 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in this JavaScript benchmark. **What is being tested?** The benchmark measures the execution time of simple `console.log` statements using different JavaScript engines (browsers). **Options compared:** There are two options being compared: 1. **Console logging**: The test case uses a single `console.log` statement with a string literal `"foo bar"`. This is a basic operation that involves printing a message to the console. 2. **String interpolation**: The same test case also includes an interpolated string using template literals, i.e., `${"foo bar"}`. **Pros and cons of each approach:** 1. **Console logging**: * Pros: Simple and straightforward, widely supported by browsers. * Cons: May not be optimized for performance, as it involves printing a message to the console. 2. **String interpolation (template literals)**: * Pros: Can provide better performance and readability, especially for more complex string manipulation. * Cons: Requires support for template literals in the JavaScript engine. **Library usage:** There is no library explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. **Special JS feature or syntax:** The only special feature used here is **template literals**, which allows you to embed expressions inside string literals using backticks (``) instead of single quotes. This feature was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). **Other alternatives:** If the benchmark were to test other aspects, it could potentially include: * Different logging mechanisms, such as `console.error` or `alert`. * More complex string operations, like concatenation, slicing, or regular expressions. * Variable assignments or function calls. * Asynchronous code execution (e.g., using `setTimeout`). However, the current focus on simple console logging with template literals is a good starting point for benchmarking JavaScript engine performance.
Related benchmarks
console.log
The performance cost of try catch
console log benchmark
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?