Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Console.log string vs object
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Console.log vs Empty log
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
function logObject(msg) { console.log({ msg, timestamp: Date.now() }); }
Tests:
Console.log
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { console.log(i); }
Empty log
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { logObject(i); }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Console.log
Empty log
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):
I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark is testing two approaches to logging output in JavaScript: 1. `Console.log` (empty log) 2. A custom `logObject` function that logs a string along with a timestamp. **Options Compared** The benchmark is comparing the performance of these two approaches on the following criteria: * Time taken to execute each test case * Number of executions per second **Approaches and Pros/Cons** ### 1. `Console.log` * **Simplest approach**: Uses the built-in `console.log` function, which is widely available in most JavaScript environments. * **Pros**: + Easy to implement and maintain + Wide adoption across different browsers and environments * **Cons**: + May not provide useful output for debugging or logging purposes (e.g., only shows a numeric value) + Can be slower than custom implementations due to the overhead of function calls ### 2. Custom `logObject` Function * **More flexible approach**: Logs an object with additional information, including a timestamp. * **Pros**: + Provides more useful output for debugging or logging purposes + Can be optimized for performance using techniques like caching or memoization * **Cons**: + Requires defining and implementing the custom function, which can add complexity + May not be as widely adopted or supported across different environments **Library Usage** The `logObject` function uses the built-in JavaScript `Date.now()` method to get the current timestamp. This is a standard library function that is widely available in most JavaScript environments. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring other approaches, here are some alternatives: * Using `console.error` instead of `console.log` for logging errors * Implementing a custom logging library using techniques like caching or memoization * Using a different logging mechanism, such as logging to a file or database Keep in mind that these alternatives may add complexity and require additional resources. The benchmark is primarily focused on comparing the performance of two simple approaches. I hope this explanation helps!
Related benchmarks:
Date.now() vs new Date().getTime()
new Date().getTime() vs Date.now()
Date.now() vs new Date()
Date.now() vs. now()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?