Benchmark: console-1928158917583

Script Preparation code:

let counter = 0;
function action() {
  counter++;
}
function actionWithLog() {
  counter++;
  console.log('ok');
}
function actionWithLogData() {
  counter++;
  console.log('ok', counter);
}

Tests:

action
action();
actionWithLog
actionWithLog();
actionWithLogData
actionWithLogData();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
action
actionWithLog
actionWithLogData

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided benchmark definition is a JSON object that represents a microbenchmark. It has four fields:

* `Name`: A unique identifier for the benchmark (in this case, "console-1928158917583").
* `Description`: An optional field with a brief description of the benchmark.
* `Script Preparation Code`: A JavaScript code snippet that is executed before each test case. In this case, it initializes a counter variable and defines three functions: `action()`, `actionWithLog()`, and `actionWithLogData()`.
* `Html Preparation Code`: An optional field with an HTML code snippet that is used to prepare the benchmarking environment.

**Individual Test Cases**

The test cases are defined in an array of JSON objects, each representing a single test case. Each object has two fields:

* `Benchmark Definition`: A string representing the JavaScript code that will be executed for this test case.
* `Test Name`: A unique identifier for the test case (in this case, "action", "actionWithLog", and "actionWithLogData").

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the execution time of three different functions:

1. `action()`: A simple function that increments a counter variable without logging anything.
2. `actionWithLog()`: A function that increments the counter variable and logs a message to the console using `console.log()`.
3. `actionWithLogData()`: A function that increments the counter variable, logs a message to the console with additional data (the current counter value), and returns 0.

The comparison is likely aimed at measuring the performance impact of logging operations on JavaScript execution speed.

**Pros and Cons**

* Using `console.log()` for logging can introduce overhead due to the creation of an event queue entry and the time it takes for the browser to process these entries. This could slow down the overall execution time of the benchmark.
* Returning 0 from a function is not necessary in JavaScript, as functions are "void" by default. This might add unnecessary complexity and potentially introduce performance overhead due to function call overhead.

**Library**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, `console.log()` is a part of the standard JavaScript API, so it's not considered a separate library.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

* There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code is straightforward and follows standard JavaScript conventions.
* No async/await, Promises, or modern JavaScript features like `for...of` loops are used.

**Other Alternatives**

If the goal of the benchmark is to measure logging performance, other alternatives could include:

1. Using a faster logging library or framework that can provide more efficient logging mechanisms.
2. Implementing custom logging functions that avoid creating event queue entries and reduce logging overhead.
3. Comparing the execution time of different logging approaches, such as using `console.log()` versus `debug.log()` (if available).
4. Using a benchmarking tool that provides built-in support for measuring logging performance.

In summary, this benchmark aims to measure the performance impact of logging operations on JavaScript execution speed by comparing three simple functions with varying levels of logging complexity.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:124.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/124.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 124 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
action	687700352.0 Ops/sec
actionWithLog	66662.4 Ops/sec
actionWithLogData	58553.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

console-1928158917583 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: action vs actionWithLog vs actionWithLogData

Created: 6 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

action

actionWithLog

actionWithLogData

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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