Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Console.log
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Console.log vs Empty log
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
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>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Console.log
Empty log
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year 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
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=607784" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Empty log
1.4M/s
Console.log
563/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Empty log
1,420,952 Ops/sec
Console.log
563 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
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 test
console log benchmark
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?