Benchmark: Console.log - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function emptyLog(msg) {
  
}

Tests:

Console.log
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { console.log(i); }
Empty log
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { emptyLog(i); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Console.log
Empty log

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/136.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 136 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Console.log	562.6 Ops/sec
Empty log	1420952.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll explain the benchmark in detail.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on MeasureThat.net. The test case measures the execution time of two different scenarios:

1. **Console.log**: This is a basic logging function that outputs the value of a variable to the console.
2. **Empty log**: This is an empty logging function, `emptyLog`, which does not perform any actual logging.

The test cases use JavaScript's built-in `console` object and its `log()` method to measure the execution time of these two scenarios.

**Options compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Console.log**: The original logging function that outputs a value to the console.
2. **Empty log**: An empty logging function, `emptyLog`, which does not perform any actual logging.

These two options differ in their behavior: Console.log outputs a value to the console, while Empty log simply returns without doing anything.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Console.log**:
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and straightforward
		+ Useful for debugging and logging purposes
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the overhead of outputting a value to the console
2. **Empty log**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can potentially be faster, as it does not require outputting a value to the console
	* Cons:
		+ May not be useful for debugging or logging purposes

In general, Console.log is suitable for situations where you need to output a value to the console for debugging or logging purposes. Empty log might be beneficial in scenarios where you want to measure the execution time of an empty function.

**Other considerations**

* The test uses JavaScript's `var` keyword with a `let` declaration, which can lead to issues if the variable is reassigned.
* The benchmark does not consider the impact of garbage collection on the execution time of these two scenarios.

**Library and special JS features**

There are no libraries or special JavaScript features used in this benchmark. It only relies on standard JavaScript functionality.

**Alternatives**

If you want to measure the execution time of other logging functions or custom logging implementations, MeasureThat.net provides a wide range of benchmarks and test cases that cover various aspects of JavaScript performance. You can also create your own custom benchmark using the platform's API.

In general, if you need to compare the performance of different logging functions or scenarios, MeasureThat.net is an excellent tool for measuring execution times and identifying potential bottlenecks in your code.

Related benchmarks:

Console.log (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Console.log vs Empty log

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Console.log

Empty log

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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