Benchmark: console.time overhead confirmed

Script Preparation code:

function factorial (num) {
    if (num < 0) {
        throw new Error("Number cannot be negative.");
    }

    if (num % 1 !== 0) {
        throw new Error("Number must be an integer.");
    }

    // The base case
    if (num === 0 || num === 1) {
        return 1;
    }

    // The general case
    return num * factorial(num - 1);
}

Tests:

without console.time
factorial(20);
with console.time
console.time('factorial'); factorial(20); console.timeEnd('factorial');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
without console.time
with console.time

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
without console.time	2501625.8 Ops/sec
with console.time	77904.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents two benchmark definitions:

1. **Without `console.time`**: This test case measures the execution time of the `factorial(20)` function without using the `console.time()` method to mark its start and end points.
2. **With `console.time`**: This test case measures the execution time of the same `factorial(20)` function, but this time it uses the `console.time()` method to record when the benchmark starts and ends.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines a recursive `factorial()` function that calculates the factorial of a given number. The function:

* Checks if the input number is negative or not an integer, throwing an error in such cases.
* Returns 1 for inputs 0 and 1 (base case).
* Recursively calls itself with decreasing input values until it reaches the base case.

**Library**

The `console` object is a built-in JavaScript library that provides various logging functions, including `time()`. The `time()` method marks the start of an execution block and can be used to measure its duration later using `timeEnd()`.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There's no specific feature or syntax mentioned in the provided code. However, it's worth noting that JavaScript is a dynamic language with many features and nuances.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Without `console.time`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and straightforward measurement.
		+ No overhead from using an additional function call.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires manual tracking of execution start and end points, which can be error-prone.
		+ May not provide accurate results due to potential timing issues.
2. **With `console.time`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Convenient and efficient way to measure execution time.
		+ Reduces the risk of manual errors in tracking execution start and end points.
	* Cons:
		+ Introduces an additional function call, which may incur minor overhead.

**Other Considerations**

When measuring JavaScript execution times, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* **Browser-specific behavior**: Different browsers might exhibit varying performance characteristics due to their rendering engines, caching mechanisms, and other internal complexities.
* **Device platform**: As shown in the benchmark results, device platforms (e.g., Mobile vs. Desktop) can significantly impact execution times due to differences in hardware capabilities and resource availability.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative methods to measure JavaScript execution times, consider:

1. **ES6 modules with timers**: You can use `import` statements followed by `setTimeout()` or `setInterval()` functions to create a timer that measures the execution time.
2. **Async/Await with performance.now()**: Use `async/await` syntax and `performance.now()` function to measure the execution time of asynchronous code blocks.

In summary, both approaches have their pros and cons. If you prioritize simplicity and convenience, using `console.time()` might be a better choice. However, if you're concerned about potential overhead or want more control over the measurement process, manually tracking execution start and end points without `console.time()` could be a viable alternative.

Related benchmarks:

console.time overhead confirmed (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: without console.time vs with console.time

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

without console.time

with console.time

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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