Benchmark: console-19281589175831

Script Preparation code:

const counter = { val: 0 };
function action() {
  counter.val++;
}
function actionWithLog() {
  counter.val++;
  console.log('ok');
}
function actionWithLogData() {
  counter.val++;
  console.log('ok', counter);
}
const customLog = [];
function actionWithCustomLog() {
  counter.val++;
  customLog.push(['ok', {...counter}]);
}

Tests:

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

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
action
actionWithLog
actionWithLogData
actionWithCustomLog

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 dive into the details of this benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents four JavaScript microbenchmarks:

1. `action()`: This function simply increments a counter variable (`counter.val`) and does nothing else.
2. `actionWithLog()`: Similar to `action()`, but also logs "ok" to the console using `console.log()`.
3. `actionWithLogData()`: Also increments the counter and logs "ok" followed by the current state of the counter object (`counter`) using `console.log()`.
4. `actionWithCustomLog()`: Similar to `actionWithLog()`, but instead of logging to the console, it pushes an array with the string "ok" and a copy of the `counter` object to an external log variable (`customLog`).

**Options being compared**

The four test cases are comparing different approaches to incrementing a counter variable:

* `action()` vs. `actionWithLog()`: Does logging affect performance?
* `action()` vs. `actionWithLogData()`: Does logging the current state of the object impact performance?
* `action()` vs. `actionWithCustomLog()`: How does storing log data in an external array compare to logging directly to the console?

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Logging (`actionWithLog`)**:
	* Pros: Easy to read and analyze log output.
	* Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to function calls and object creation.
2. **Logging with object state (`actionWithLogData`)**:
	* Pros: Provides more insight into the counter's state at a specific point in time.
	* Cons: May increase memory usage due to object cloning and logging.
3. **External log storage (`actionWithCustomLog`)**:
	* Pros: Can be optimized for performance by using a fixed-size buffer or caching.
	* Cons: Requires careful management of the log buffer to avoid memory leaks.

**Special considerations**

The test cases use some standard JavaScript features, including:

* Object literals and assignment
* Function declarations and calls
* `console.log()` statements

There are no notable special features or syntax used in these benchmarks.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to create a similar benchmark, you could consider adding more test cases that explore additional scenarios, such as:

* Using a different logging mechanism (e.g., console.error(), file output)
* Increasing the complexity of the log data being logged
* Using asynchronous logging or callbacks
* Exploring performance differences on different platforms or browsers

Keep in mind that each added test case would require more code and potentially increase the benchmark's overall overhead.

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	686780352.0 Ops/sec
actionWithLog	65731.2 Ops/sec
actionWithLogData	56033.8 Ops/sec
actionWithCustomLog	5026856.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

console-19281589175831 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: action vs actionWithLog vs actionWithLogData vs actionWithCustomLog

Created: 6 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

action

actionWithLog

actionWithLogData

actionWithCustomLog

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):