How to measure time taken by a function to execute
I need to get execution time in milliseconds.
I originally asked this question back in 2008. The accepted answer
then was to use new Date().getTime() However, we can all agree now
that using the standard performance.now() API is more
appropriate. I am therefore changing the accepted answer to this one.
javascript profiling
add a comment |
I need to get execution time in milliseconds.
I originally asked this question back in 2008. The accepted answer
then was to use new Date().getTime() However, we can all agree now
that using the standard performance.now() API is more
appropriate. I am therefore changing the accepted answer to this one.
javascript profiling
3
Often a statement on what you are trying to accomplish with the execution time can prove to be far more useful than answering the question alone. These days, using Profiling in Firebug or Chrome Dev tools is often a far better way of finding the code that is sucking up your cpu juice.
– oligofren
Mar 6 '13 at 10:04
here's how you can do it the classicDate
way, which gives youms
and is sufficient for the majority of cases I think albertech.blogspot.com/2015/07/… ... but yeah you should really look atPerformance.now
– jar
Oct 6 '16 at 19:53
performance.now()
does not work in Node.new Date().getTime()
will work in Node.
– Ryan Walker
Sep 11 '18 at 22:50
add a comment |
I need to get execution time in milliseconds.
I originally asked this question back in 2008. The accepted answer
then was to use new Date().getTime() However, we can all agree now
that using the standard performance.now() API is more
appropriate. I am therefore changing the accepted answer to this one.
javascript profiling
I need to get execution time in milliseconds.
I originally asked this question back in 2008. The accepted answer
then was to use new Date().getTime() However, we can all agree now
that using the standard performance.now() API is more
appropriate. I am therefore changing the accepted answer to this one.
javascript profiling
javascript profiling
edited Oct 6 '16 at 20:33
Julius A
asked Nov 24 '08 at 11:09
Julius AJulius A
13.4k256589
13.4k256589
3
Often a statement on what you are trying to accomplish with the execution time can prove to be far more useful than answering the question alone. These days, using Profiling in Firebug or Chrome Dev tools is often a far better way of finding the code that is sucking up your cpu juice.
– oligofren
Mar 6 '13 at 10:04
here's how you can do it the classicDate
way, which gives youms
and is sufficient for the majority of cases I think albertech.blogspot.com/2015/07/… ... but yeah you should really look atPerformance.now
– jar
Oct 6 '16 at 19:53
performance.now()
does not work in Node.new Date().getTime()
will work in Node.
– Ryan Walker
Sep 11 '18 at 22:50
add a comment |
3
Often a statement on what you are trying to accomplish with the execution time can prove to be far more useful than answering the question alone. These days, using Profiling in Firebug or Chrome Dev tools is often a far better way of finding the code that is sucking up your cpu juice.
– oligofren
Mar 6 '13 at 10:04
here's how you can do it the classicDate
way, which gives youms
and is sufficient for the majority of cases I think albertech.blogspot.com/2015/07/… ... but yeah you should really look atPerformance.now
– jar
Oct 6 '16 at 19:53
performance.now()
does not work in Node.new Date().getTime()
will work in Node.
– Ryan Walker
Sep 11 '18 at 22:50
3
3
Often a statement on what you are trying to accomplish with the execution time can prove to be far more useful than answering the question alone. These days, using Profiling in Firebug or Chrome Dev tools is often a far better way of finding the code that is sucking up your cpu juice.
– oligofren
Mar 6 '13 at 10:04
Often a statement on what you are trying to accomplish with the execution time can prove to be far more useful than answering the question alone. These days, using Profiling in Firebug or Chrome Dev tools is often a far better way of finding the code that is sucking up your cpu juice.
– oligofren
Mar 6 '13 at 10:04
here's how you can do it the classic
Date
way, which gives you ms
and is sufficient for the majority of cases I think albertech.blogspot.com/2015/07/… ... but yeah you should really look at Performance.now
– jar
Oct 6 '16 at 19:53
here's how you can do it the classic
Date
way, which gives you ms
and is sufficient for the majority of cases I think albertech.blogspot.com/2015/07/… ... but yeah you should really look at Performance.now
– jar
Oct 6 '16 at 19:53
performance.now()
does not work in Node. new Date().getTime()
will work in Node.– Ryan Walker
Sep 11 '18 at 22:50
performance.now()
does not work in Node. new Date().getTime()
will work in Node.– Ryan Walker
Sep 11 '18 at 22:50
add a comment |
22 Answers
22
active
oldest
votes
Using performance.now():
var t0 = performance.now();
doSomething(); // <---- The function you're measuring time for
var t1 = performance.now();
console.log("Call to doSomething took " + (t1 - t0) + " milliseconds.")
NodeJs
: it is required to import theperformance
class
Using console.time: (non-standard) (living standard)
console.time('someFunction');
someFunction(); // Whatever is timed goes between the two "console.time"
console.timeEnd('someFunction');
Note:
The string being pass to the time()
and timeEnd()
methods must match
(for the timer to finish as expected).
console.time()
documentations:
- NodeJS documentation regarding
- MDN (client-side) documentation
18
It's supported by Chrome Developer Tools as well now.
– julien_c
Mar 15 '12 at 11:00
3
This is currently the best way to collect accurate timings from what I understand.
– Ash Blue
May 5 '12 at 2:18
4
Don't you need to execute the function between those two statements? You now measure the time it takes to define it, not to execute it. Correct me if I'm wrong...
– Cristian
Sep 4 '12 at 22:06
2
Link to the MDN article about this feature: developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/console.time
– nullability
Feb 19 '13 at 17:19
6
yes you can do `totalTime += console.timeEnd('timer')' and do it for each timer
– vsync
Jun 19 '13 at 15:28
|
show 22 more comments
use new Date().getTime()
The getTime() method returns the number of milliseconds since midnight of January 1, 1970.
ex.
var start = new Date().getTime();
for (i = 0; i < 50000; ++i) {
// do something
}
var end = new Date().getTime();
var time = end - start;
alert('Execution time: ' + time);
9
Note that you can substitute +new Date() for the getTime() call: var start = +new Date(); // do stuff alert("Execution time: "+(+new Date())-start);
– J c
Nov 24 '08 at 13:00
47
Timings are not accurate because Date is not intended for this functionality. I'm going to be bold here and say you should use vsync's example if you want accurate timing. Although it only works in Chrome and Firefox ATM.
– Ash Blue
May 5 '12 at 2:17
9
Beware, the getMilliseconds() gives you the millisecond fraction of the current second. If you replace getTime() with getMilliseconds() you can get negative results if you cross a second.
– RickyA
Jan 10 '13 at 15:47
6
The answer by vsync is far more correct by todays standards, and using Date() can result in very erronous results being displayed, especially on the Windows platform where results may be rounded+floored to the nearest 15ms boundary, resulting in weird stuff such as 0ms timings on tiny code bits.
– oligofren
Mar 6 '13 at 9:59
28
@AshBlue, we should usewindow.performance.now
. See stackoverflow.com/a/15641427/632951
– Pacerier
Nov 2 '13 at 2:17
|
show 9 more comments
Don't use Date(). Read below.
Use performance.now()
:
<script>
var a = performance.now();
alert('do something...');
var b = performance.now();
alert('It took ' + (b - a) + ' ms.');
</script>
It works on:
IE 10 ++
FireFox 15 ++
Chrome 24 ++
Safari 8 ++
Opera 15 ++
Android 4.4 ++
etc, etc
console.time
may be viable for you, but it's non-standard §:
This feature is non-standard and is not on a standards track. Do not use it on production sites facing the Web: it will not work for every user. There may also be large incompatibilities between implementations and the behavior may change in the future.
Besides browser support, performance.now
seems to have the potential to provide more accurate timings as it appears to be the bare-bones version of console.time
.
<rant> Also, DON'T EVER use Date
for anything because it's affected by changes in "system time". Which means we will get invalid results —like "negative timing"— when the user doesn't have an accurate system time:
On Oct 2014, my system clock went haywire and guess what.... I opened Gmail and saw all of my day's emails "sent 0 minutes ago". And I'd thought Gmail is supposed to be built by world-class engineers from Google.......
(Set your system clock to one year ago and go to Gmail so we can all have a good laugh. Perhaps someday we will have a Hall of Shame for JS Date
.)
Google Spreadsheet's now()
function also suffers from this problem.
The only time you'll be using Date
is when you want to show the user his system clock time. Not when you want to get the time or to measure anything.
3
Just what I was looking for! I want to be able to add several times together, can't really do that with console times.
– Ray
Sep 29 '13 at 13:33
6
note that this isn't supported in safari yet: developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Performance.now()
– Akos K
Nov 1 '13 at 21:11
2
I use Firebug Profile and performance.now(), and they both work well. Performance.now() confirms my result from Profile.
– Vincent Jia
Feb 11 '14 at 10:01
2
Doesn't work in my biggest hangup, which is IE7 (corporate customers.) I don't care about measuring performance in chrome, it's always lightning fast.
– Nick
Mar 3 '14 at 18:27
2
This is a better way then console.time().
– Sanjeev
Jan 25 '15 at 12:15
|
show 2 more comments
If you need to get function execution time on your local development machine, you can either use your browser's profiling tools, or console commands such as console.time()
and console.timeEnd()
.
All modern browsers have JavaScript profilers built-in. These profilers should give the most accurate measurement as you do not have to modify your existing code, which could affect the function's execution time.
To profile your JavaScript:
- In Chrome, press F12 and select the Profiles tab, then Collect JavaScript CPU Profile.
- In Firefox, install/open Firebug, and click on the Profile button.
- In IE 9+, press F12, click on Script or Profiler (depending on your version of IE).
Alternatively, on your development machine, you can add instrumentation to your code with console.time()
and console.timeEnd()
. These functions, supported in Firefox11+, Chrome2+ and IE11+, report on timers that you start/stop via console.time()
. time()
takes a user-defined timer name as an argument, and timeEnd()
then reports on the execution time since the timer started:
function a() {
console.time("mytimer");
... do stuff ...
var dur = console.timeEnd("myTimer"); // NOTE: dur only works in FF
}
Note that only Firefox returns the elapsed time in the timeEnd()
call. The other browsers simply report the result to the developer console: the return value of timeEnd()
is undefined.
If you want to get function execution time in the wild, you will have to instrument your code. You have a couple options. You can simply save the start and end times by querying new Date().getTime()
:
function a() {
var start = new Date().getTime();
... do stuff ...
var end = new Date().getTime();
var dur = end - start;
}
However, the Date
object only has millisecond resolution and will be affected by any OS's system clock changes. In modern browsers, there's a better option.
The better option is to use the High Resolution Time, aka window.performance.now()
. now()
is better than the traditional Date.getTime()
in two important ways:
now()
is a double with submillisecond resolution that represents the number of milliseconds since the start of the page's navigation. It returns the number of microseconds in the fractional (e.g. a value of 1000.123 is 1 second and 123 microseconds).now()
is monotonically increasing. This is important asDate.getTime()
can possibly jump forward or even backward on subsequent calls. Notably, if the OS's system time is updated (e.g. atomic clock synchronization),Date.getTime()
is also updated.now()
is guaranteed to always be monotonically increasing, so it is not affected by the OS's system time -- it will always be wall-clock time (assuming your wall clock is not atomic...).
now()
can be used in almost every place that new Date().getTime()
, + new Date
andt Date.now()
are. The exception is that Date
and now()
times don't mix, as Date
is based on unix-epoch (the number of milliseconds since 1970), while now()
is the number of milliseconds since your page navigation started (so it will be much smaller than Date
).
Here's an example of how to use now()
:
function a() {
var start = window.performance.now();
... do stuff ...
var end = window.performance.now();
var dur = end - start;
}
now()
is supported in Chrome stable, Firefox 15+, and IE10. There are also several polyfills available.
One other option for measuring execution time in the wild is UserTiming. UserTiming behaves similarly to console.time()
and console.timeEnd()
, but it utilizes the same High Resolution Timestamp that now()
uses (so you get a sub-millisecond monotonically increasing clock), and saves the timestamps and durations to the PerformanceTimeline.
UserTiming has the concepts of marks (timestamps) and measures (durations). You can define as many of either as you want, and they're exposed on the PerformanceTimeline.
To save a timestamp, you call mark(startMarkName)
. To get the duration since your first mark, you simply call measure(measurename, startMarkname)
. The duration is then saved in the PerformanceTimeline alongside your marks.
function a() {
window.performance.mark("start");
... do stuff ...
window.performance.measure("myfunctionduration", "start");
}
// duration is window.performance.getEntriesByName("myfunctionduration", "measure")[0];
UserTiming is available in IE10+ and Chrome25+. There is also a polyfill available (which I wrote).
1
Excellent and most current answer IMHO :) It would be even better with a bit of editing. I'd say that user timing is not "one other option" for measuring, but the preferred option when the benchmarking is not done on the development machine itself. With your polyfill it works across all browsers. And hiding away the details and boilerplate ofperformance.now
andDate
is the reason it exists.
– hashchange
Jul 19 '14 at 10:10
add a comment |
To get precise values you should use Performance interface. It's supported in modern versions of Firefox, Chrome, Opera and IE. Here's an example of how it can be used:
var performance = window.performance;
var t0 = performance.now();
doWork();
var t1 = performance.now();
console.log("Call to doWork took " + (t1 - t0) + " milliseconds.")
Date.getTime()
or console.time()
are not good for measuring precise execution time. You can use them if quick rough estimate is OK for you. By rough estimate I mean you can get 15-60 ms shift from the real time.
Check this brilliant post on measuring execution time in JavaScript. The author also gives a couple of links about accuracy of JavaScript time, worth reading.
add a comment |
Use Firebug, enable both Console and Javascript. Click Profile. Reload. Click Profile again. View the report.
7
Good advice but obviously works only for FF. We often want to compare browser speeds... :-)
– PhiLho
Nov 24 '08 at 11:27
3
On new Firebuq they hide this options to menu, use CTRL + SHIFT + P or console.profile(); console..profileEnd()
– user956584
Feb 29 '12 at 8:25
3
Chrome supportsconsole.time()
andconsole.timeEnd()
too now.
– julien_c
Mar 15 '12 at 11:01
add a comment |
var StopWatch = function (performance) {
this.startTime = 0;
this.stopTime = 0;
this.running = false;
this.performance = performance === false ? false : !!window.performance;
};
StopWatch.prototype.currentTime = function () {
return this.performance ? window.performance.now() : new Date().getTime();
};
StopWatch.prototype.start = function () {
this.startTime = this.currentTime();
this.running = true;
};
StopWatch.prototype.stop = function () {
this.stopTime = this.currentTime();
this.running = false;
};
StopWatch.prototype.getElapsedMilliseconds = function () {
if (this.running) {
this.stopTime = this.currentTime();
}
return this.stopTime - this.startTime;
};
StopWatch.prototype.getElapsedSeconds = function () {
return this.getElapsedMilliseconds() / 1000;
};
StopWatch.prototype.printElapsed = function (name) {
var currentName = name || 'Elapsed:';
console.log(currentName, '[' + this.getElapsedMilliseconds() + 'ms]', '[' + this.getElapsedSeconds() + 's]');
};
Benchmark
var stopwatch = new StopWatch();
stopwatch.start();
for (var index = 0; index < 100; index++) {
stopwatch.printElapsed('Instance[' + index + ']');
}
stopwatch.stop();
stopwatch.printElapsed();
Output
Instance[0] [0ms] [0s]
Instance[1] [2.999999967869371ms] [0.002999999967869371s]
Instance[2] [2.999999967869371ms] [0.002999999967869371s]
/* ... */
Instance[99] [10.999999998603016ms] [0.010999999998603016s]
Elapsed: [10.999999998603016ms] [0.010999999998603016s]
performance.now() is optional - just pass false into StopWatch constructor function.
add a comment |
process.hrtime() is available within Node.js - it returns a value in nanoseconds
var hrTime = process.hrtime()
console.log(hrTime[0] * 1000000 + hrTime[1] / 1000)
if you rather convert it to ms e-3 rather than the suggested microsecond e-6:hrtime[0] * 1000 + hrtime[1] / 1000000
-> yeah, I rather usevar hrtime
as well! :P
– cregox
Mar 25 '17 at 14:21
add a comment |
To extend vsync's code further to have the ability to return the timeEnd as a value in NodeJS use this little piece of code.
console.timeEndValue = function(label) { // Add console.timeEndValue, to add a return value
var time = this._times[label];
if (!time) {
throw new Error('No such label: ' + label);
}
var duration = Date.now() - time;
return duration;
};
Now use the code like so:
console.time('someFunction timer');
someFunction();
var executionTime = console.timeEndValue('someFunction timer');
console.log("The execution time is " + executionTime);
This gives you more possibilities. You can store the execution time to be used for more purposes like using it in equations, or stored in a database, sent to a remote client over websockets, served on a webpage, etc.
add a comment |
you can use add operator also here
var start = +new Date();
callYourFunctionHere();
var end = +new Date();
var time = end - start;
console.log('total execution time = '+ time + 'ms');
add a comment |
Since console.time
and performance.now
aren't supported in some major browsers (i.e. IE10), I created a slim utility that utilizes the best available methods. However, it lacks error handling for false usages (calling End()
on a not initialized timer).
Use it and improve it as you want.
Performance: {
Timer: {},
Start: function (name) {
if (console && console.time) {
console.time(name);
} else if (window.performance.now) {
this.Timer[name] = window.performance.now();
} else {
this.Timer[name] = new Date().getTime();
}
},
End: function (name) {
if (console && console.time) {
console.timeEnd(name);
} else {
var result;
if (window.performance.now) {
result = window.performance.now() - this.Timer[name];
} else {
result = new Date().getTime() - this.Timer[name];
}
console.log(name + ": " + result);
}
}
}
add a comment |
It may help you.
var t0 = date.now();
doSomething();
var t1 = date.now();
console.log("Call to doSomething took approximate" + (t1 - t0)/1000 + " seconds.")
1
While this code snippet may solve the question, including an explanation really helps to improve the quality of your post. Remember that you are answering the question for readers in the future, and those people might not know the reasons for your code suggestion. Please also try not to crowd your code with explanatory comments, this reduces the readability of both the code and the explanations!
– Filnor
Mar 16 '18 at 7:09
add a comment |
Thanks, Achim Koellner, will expand your answer a bit:
var t0 = process.hrtime();
//Start of code to measure
//End of code
var timeInMilliseconds = process.hrtime(t0)[1]/1000000; // dividing by 1000000 gives milliseconds from nanoseconds
Please, note, that you shouldn't do anything apart from what you want to measure (for example, console.log
will also take time to execute and will affect performance tests).
Note, that in order by measure asynchronous functions execution time, you should insert var timeInMilliseconds = process.hrtime(t0)[1]/1000000;
inside the callback. For example,
var t0 = process.hrtime();
someAsyncFunction(function(err, results) {
var timeInMilliseconds = process.hrtime(t0)[1]/1000000;
});
add a comment |
A couple months ago I put together my own routine that times a function using Date.now() -- even though at the time the accepted method seemed to be performance.now() --
because the performance object is not yet available (built-in) in the stable Node.js release.
Today I was doing some more research and found another method for timing. Since I also found how to use this in Node.js code, I thought I would share it here.
The following is combined from the examples given by w3c and Node.js:
function functionTimer() {
performance.mark('start')
functionToBeTimed()
performance.mark('end')
performance.measure('Start to End', 'start', 'end')
const measure = performance.getEntriesByName('Start to End')[0]
console.log(measure.duration)
}
NOTE:
If you intend to use the performance
object in a Node.js app, you must include the following require:
const { performance } = require('perf_hooks')
add a comment |
Here's a decorator for timing functions
let timed = (f) => (...args)=>{
let start = performance.now();
let ret = f(...args);
console.log(`function ${f.name} took ${(performance.now()-start).toFixed(3)}ms`)
return ret;
}
Usage:
let test = ()=>{/*does something*/}
test = timed(test) // turns the function into a timed function in one line
test() // run your code as normal, logs 'function test took 1001.900ms'
If you're using async functions you can make timed
async and add an await
before f(...args), and that should work for those. It gets more complicated if you want one decorator to handle both sync and async functions.
add a comment |
export default class Singleton {
static myInstance: Singleton = null;
_timers: any = {};
/**
* @returns {Singleton}
*/
static getInstance() {
if (Singleton.myInstance == null) {
Singleton.myInstance = new Singleton();
}
return this.myInstance;
}
initTime(label: string) {
this._timers[label] = Date.now();
return this._timers[label];
}
endTime(label: string) {
const endTime = Date.now();
if (this._timers[label]) {
const delta = endTime - this._timers[label];
const finalTime = `${label}: ${delta}ms`;
delete this._timers[label];
return finalTime;
} else {
return null;
}
}
}
InitTime related to string
.
return Singleton.getInstance().initTime(label); // Returns the time init
return Singleton.getInstance().endTime(label); // Returns the total time between init and end
add a comment |
If you want to measure the time between multiple things that aren't nested you could use this:
function timer(lap){
if(lap) console.log(`${lap} in: ${(performance.now()-timer.prev).toFixed(3)}ms`);
timer.prev = performance.now();
}
Similar to console.time(), but easier usage if you don't need to keep track of previous timers.
If you like the blue color from console.time(), you can use this line instead
console.log(`${lap} in: %c${(performance.now()-timer.prev).toFixed(3)}ms`, 'color:blue');
// Usage:
timer() // set the start
// do something
timer('built') // logs 'built in: 591.815ms'
// do something
timer('copied') // logs 'copied in: 0.065ms'
// do something
timer('compared') // logs 'compared in: 36.41ms'
add a comment |
In my case, I perfer to use @ grammar suger and compile it with babel.
The problem of this method is that function has to be inside object.
Sample JS Code
function timer() {
return (target, propertyKey, descriptor) => {
const start = Date.now();
let oldFunc = descriptor.value;
descriptor.value = async function (){
var result = await oldFunc.apply(this, arguments);
console.log(Date.now() - start);
return result;
}
}
}
// Util function
function delay(timeout) {
return new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(() => {
resolve();
}, timeout));
}
class Test {
@timer()
async test(timout) {
await delay(timout)
console.log("delay 1");
await delay(timout)
console.log("delay 2");
}
}
const t = new Test();
t.test(1000)
t.test(100)
.babelrc (for babel 6)
{
"plugins": [
"transform-decorators-legacy"
]
}
add a comment |
It is possible to use only one variable:
var timer = -performance.now();
// Do something
timer += performance.now();
console.log("Time: " + (timer/1000).toFixed(5) + " sec.")
timer/1000
- to convert milliseconds to seconds
.toFixed(5)
- to trim extra digits
add a comment |
Stopwatch with cumulative cycles
Works with server and client (Node or DOM), uses the Performance
API.
Good when you have many small cycles e.g. in a function called 1000 times that processes 1000 data objects but you want to see how each operation in this function adds up to the total.
So this one uses a module global (singleton) timer. Same as a class singleton pattern, just a bit simpler to use, but you need to put this in a separate e.g. stopwatch.js
file.
const perf = typeof performance !== "undefined" ? performance : require('perf_hooks').performance;
const DIGITS = 2;
let _timers = {};
const _log = (label, delta?) => {
if (_timers[label]) {
console.log(`${label}: ` + (delta ? `${delta.toFixed(DIGITS)} ms last, ` : '') +
`${_timers[label].total.toFixed(DIGITS)} ms total, ${_timers[label].cycles} cycles`);
}
};
export const Stopwatch = {
start(label) {
const now = perf.now();
if (_timers[label]) {
if (!_timers[label].started) {
_timers[label].started = now;
}
} else {
_timers[label] = {
started: now,
total: 0,
cycles: 0
};
}
},
/** Returns total elapsed milliseconds, or null if stopwatch doesn't exist. */
stop(label, log = false) {
const now = perf.now();
if (_timers[label]) {
let delta;
if(_timers[label].started) {
delta = now - _timers[label].started;
_timers[label].started = null;
_timers[label].total += delta;
_timers[label].cycles++;
}
log && _log(label, delta);
return _timers[label].total;
} else {
return null;
}
},
/** Logs total time */
log: _log,
delete(label) {
delete _timers[label];
}
};
add a comment |
As previously stated check for and use built in timer. But if you want or need to write your own here is my two cents:
//=-=|Source|=-=//
/**
* JavaScript Timer Object
*
* var now=timer['elapsed']();
* timer['stop']();
* timer['start']();
* timer['reset']();
*
* @expose
* @method timer
* @return {number}
*/
timer=function(){
var a=Date.now();
b=0;
return{
/** @expose */
elapsed:function(){return b=Date.now()-a},
start:function(){return a=Date.now()},
stop:function(){return Date.now()},
reset:function(){return a=0}
}
}();
//=-=|Google Advanced Optimized|=-=//
timer=function(){var a=Date.now();b=0;return{a:function(){return b=Date.now()-a},start:function(){return a=Date.now()},stop:function(){return Date.now()},reset:function(){return a=0}}}();
Compilation was a success!
- Original Size: 219 bytes gzipped (405 bytes uncompressed)
- Compiled Size: 109 bytes gzipped (187 bytes uncompressed)
- Saved 50.23% off the gzipped size (53.83% without gzip
add a comment |
The accepted answer is wrong !
Since JavaScript is asynchronous, the values of the variable end of the accepted answer would be wrong.
var start = new Date().getTime();
for (i = 0; i < 50000; ++i) {
// JavaScript is not waiting until the for is finished !!
}
var end = new Date().getTime();
var time = end - start;
alert('Execution time: ' + time);
The execution of the for may be very fast so you can not see that the result is wrong. You can test it with a code doing some request :
var start = new Date().getTime();
for (i = 0; i < 50000; ++i) {
$.ajax({
url: 'www.oneOfYourWebsites.com',
success: function(){
console.log("success");
}
});
}
var end = new Date().getTime();
var time = end - start;
alert('Execution time: ' + time);
So the alert will prompt very quickly but in the console you'll see that the ajax requests are continuing.
Here is how you should do it : https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Performance.now
7
It's not because of the for loop. A for loop will wait until the last loop until it will go on down your sourcecode. AJAX calls are async. And there are also other functions that run async. But a for loop is not executet async.
– Scriptlabs
Mar 12 '15 at 19:21
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f313893%2fhow-to-measure-time-taken-by-a-function-to-execute%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
22 Answers
22
active
oldest
votes
22 Answers
22
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Using performance.now():
var t0 = performance.now();
doSomething(); // <---- The function you're measuring time for
var t1 = performance.now();
console.log("Call to doSomething took " + (t1 - t0) + " milliseconds.")
NodeJs
: it is required to import theperformance
class
Using console.time: (non-standard) (living standard)
console.time('someFunction');
someFunction(); // Whatever is timed goes between the two "console.time"
console.timeEnd('someFunction');
Note:
The string being pass to the time()
and timeEnd()
methods must match
(for the timer to finish as expected).
console.time()
documentations:
- NodeJS documentation regarding
- MDN (client-side) documentation
18
It's supported by Chrome Developer Tools as well now.
– julien_c
Mar 15 '12 at 11:00
3
This is currently the best way to collect accurate timings from what I understand.
– Ash Blue
May 5 '12 at 2:18
4
Don't you need to execute the function between those two statements? You now measure the time it takes to define it, not to execute it. Correct me if I'm wrong...
– Cristian
Sep 4 '12 at 22:06
2
Link to the MDN article about this feature: developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/console.time
– nullability
Feb 19 '13 at 17:19
6
yes you can do `totalTime += console.timeEnd('timer')' and do it for each timer
– vsync
Jun 19 '13 at 15:28
|
show 22 more comments
Using performance.now():
var t0 = performance.now();
doSomething(); // <---- The function you're measuring time for
var t1 = performance.now();
console.log("Call to doSomething took " + (t1 - t0) + " milliseconds.")
NodeJs
: it is required to import theperformance
class
Using console.time: (non-standard) (living standard)
console.time('someFunction');
someFunction(); // Whatever is timed goes between the two "console.time"
console.timeEnd('someFunction');
Note:
The string being pass to the time()
and timeEnd()
methods must match
(for the timer to finish as expected).
console.time()
documentations:
- NodeJS documentation regarding
- MDN (client-side) documentation
18
It's supported by Chrome Developer Tools as well now.
– julien_c
Mar 15 '12 at 11:00
3
This is currently the best way to collect accurate timings from what I understand.
– Ash Blue
May 5 '12 at 2:18
4
Don't you need to execute the function between those two statements? You now measure the time it takes to define it, not to execute it. Correct me if I'm wrong...
– Cristian
Sep 4 '12 at 22:06
2
Link to the MDN article about this feature: developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/console.time
– nullability
Feb 19 '13 at 17:19
6
yes you can do `totalTime += console.timeEnd('timer')' and do it for each timer
– vsync
Jun 19 '13 at 15:28
|
show 22 more comments
Using performance.now():
var t0 = performance.now();
doSomething(); // <---- The function you're measuring time for
var t1 = performance.now();
console.log("Call to doSomething took " + (t1 - t0) + " milliseconds.")
NodeJs
: it is required to import theperformance
class
Using console.time: (non-standard) (living standard)
console.time('someFunction');
someFunction(); // Whatever is timed goes between the two "console.time"
console.timeEnd('someFunction');
Note:
The string being pass to the time()
and timeEnd()
methods must match
(for the timer to finish as expected).
console.time()
documentations:
- NodeJS documentation regarding
- MDN (client-side) documentation
Using performance.now():
var t0 = performance.now();
doSomething(); // <---- The function you're measuring time for
var t1 = performance.now();
console.log("Call to doSomething took " + (t1 - t0) + " milliseconds.")
NodeJs
: it is required to import theperformance
class
Using console.time: (non-standard) (living standard)
console.time('someFunction');
someFunction(); // Whatever is timed goes between the two "console.time"
console.timeEnd('someFunction');
Note:
The string being pass to the time()
and timeEnd()
methods must match
(for the timer to finish as expected).
console.time()
documentations:
- NodeJS documentation regarding
- MDN (client-side) documentation
edited Nov 14 '18 at 12:56
answered Dec 29 '09 at 15:05
vsyncvsync
46.7k36159220
46.7k36159220
18
It's supported by Chrome Developer Tools as well now.
– julien_c
Mar 15 '12 at 11:00
3
This is currently the best way to collect accurate timings from what I understand.
– Ash Blue
May 5 '12 at 2:18
4
Don't you need to execute the function between those two statements? You now measure the time it takes to define it, not to execute it. Correct me if I'm wrong...
– Cristian
Sep 4 '12 at 22:06
2
Link to the MDN article about this feature: developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/console.time
– nullability
Feb 19 '13 at 17:19
6
yes you can do `totalTime += console.timeEnd('timer')' and do it for each timer
– vsync
Jun 19 '13 at 15:28
|
show 22 more comments
18
It's supported by Chrome Developer Tools as well now.
– julien_c
Mar 15 '12 at 11:00
3
This is currently the best way to collect accurate timings from what I understand.
– Ash Blue
May 5 '12 at 2:18
4
Don't you need to execute the function between those two statements? You now measure the time it takes to define it, not to execute it. Correct me if I'm wrong...
– Cristian
Sep 4 '12 at 22:06
2
Link to the MDN article about this feature: developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/console.time
– nullability
Feb 19 '13 at 17:19
6
yes you can do `totalTime += console.timeEnd('timer')' and do it for each timer
– vsync
Jun 19 '13 at 15:28
18
18
It's supported by Chrome Developer Tools as well now.
– julien_c
Mar 15 '12 at 11:00
It's supported by Chrome Developer Tools as well now.
– julien_c
Mar 15 '12 at 11:00
3
3
This is currently the best way to collect accurate timings from what I understand.
– Ash Blue
May 5 '12 at 2:18
This is currently the best way to collect accurate timings from what I understand.
– Ash Blue
May 5 '12 at 2:18
4
4
Don't you need to execute the function between those two statements? You now measure the time it takes to define it, not to execute it. Correct me if I'm wrong...
– Cristian
Sep 4 '12 at 22:06
Don't you need to execute the function between those two statements? You now measure the time it takes to define it, not to execute it. Correct me if I'm wrong...
– Cristian
Sep 4 '12 at 22:06
2
2
Link to the MDN article about this feature: developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/console.time
– nullability
Feb 19 '13 at 17:19
Link to the MDN article about this feature: developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/console.time
– nullability
Feb 19 '13 at 17:19
6
6
yes you can do `totalTime += console.timeEnd('timer')' and do it for each timer
– vsync
Jun 19 '13 at 15:28
yes you can do `totalTime += console.timeEnd('timer')' and do it for each timer
– vsync
Jun 19 '13 at 15:28
|
show 22 more comments
use new Date().getTime()
The getTime() method returns the number of milliseconds since midnight of January 1, 1970.
ex.
var start = new Date().getTime();
for (i = 0; i < 50000; ++i) {
// do something
}
var end = new Date().getTime();
var time = end - start;
alert('Execution time: ' + time);
9
Note that you can substitute +new Date() for the getTime() call: var start = +new Date(); // do stuff alert("Execution time: "+(+new Date())-start);
– J c
Nov 24 '08 at 13:00
47
Timings are not accurate because Date is not intended for this functionality. I'm going to be bold here and say you should use vsync's example if you want accurate timing. Although it only works in Chrome and Firefox ATM.
– Ash Blue
May 5 '12 at 2:17
9
Beware, the getMilliseconds() gives you the millisecond fraction of the current second. If you replace getTime() with getMilliseconds() you can get negative results if you cross a second.
– RickyA
Jan 10 '13 at 15:47
6
The answer by vsync is far more correct by todays standards, and using Date() can result in very erronous results being displayed, especially on the Windows platform where results may be rounded+floored to the nearest 15ms boundary, resulting in weird stuff such as 0ms timings on tiny code bits.
– oligofren
Mar 6 '13 at 9:59
28
@AshBlue, we should usewindow.performance.now
. See stackoverflow.com/a/15641427/632951
– Pacerier
Nov 2 '13 at 2:17
|
show 9 more comments
use new Date().getTime()
The getTime() method returns the number of milliseconds since midnight of January 1, 1970.
ex.
var start = new Date().getTime();
for (i = 0; i < 50000; ++i) {
// do something
}
var end = new Date().getTime();
var time = end - start;
alert('Execution time: ' + time);
9
Note that you can substitute +new Date() for the getTime() call: var start = +new Date(); // do stuff alert("Execution time: "+(+new Date())-start);
– J c
Nov 24 '08 at 13:00
47
Timings are not accurate because Date is not intended for this functionality. I'm going to be bold here and say you should use vsync's example if you want accurate timing. Although it only works in Chrome and Firefox ATM.
– Ash Blue
May 5 '12 at 2:17
9
Beware, the getMilliseconds() gives you the millisecond fraction of the current second. If you replace getTime() with getMilliseconds() you can get negative results if you cross a second.
– RickyA
Jan 10 '13 at 15:47
6
The answer by vsync is far more correct by todays standards, and using Date() can result in very erronous results being displayed, especially on the Windows platform where results may be rounded+floored to the nearest 15ms boundary, resulting in weird stuff such as 0ms timings on tiny code bits.
– oligofren
Mar 6 '13 at 9:59
28
@AshBlue, we should usewindow.performance.now
. See stackoverflow.com/a/15641427/632951
– Pacerier
Nov 2 '13 at 2:17
|
show 9 more comments
use new Date().getTime()
The getTime() method returns the number of milliseconds since midnight of January 1, 1970.
ex.
var start = new Date().getTime();
for (i = 0; i < 50000; ++i) {
// do something
}
var end = new Date().getTime();
var time = end - start;
alert('Execution time: ' + time);
use new Date().getTime()
The getTime() method returns the number of milliseconds since midnight of January 1, 1970.
ex.
var start = new Date().getTime();
for (i = 0; i < 50000; ++i) {
// do something
}
var end = new Date().getTime();
var time = end - start;
alert('Execution time: ' + time);
edited Apr 12 '16 at 4:17
Sam Watkins
4,57522528
4,57522528
answered Nov 24 '08 at 11:15
OwenOwen
64.9k18104112
64.9k18104112
9
Note that you can substitute +new Date() for the getTime() call: var start = +new Date(); // do stuff alert("Execution time: "+(+new Date())-start);
– J c
Nov 24 '08 at 13:00
47
Timings are not accurate because Date is not intended for this functionality. I'm going to be bold here and say you should use vsync's example if you want accurate timing. Although it only works in Chrome and Firefox ATM.
– Ash Blue
May 5 '12 at 2:17
9
Beware, the getMilliseconds() gives you the millisecond fraction of the current second. If you replace getTime() with getMilliseconds() you can get negative results if you cross a second.
– RickyA
Jan 10 '13 at 15:47
6
The answer by vsync is far more correct by todays standards, and using Date() can result in very erronous results being displayed, especially on the Windows platform where results may be rounded+floored to the nearest 15ms boundary, resulting in weird stuff such as 0ms timings on tiny code bits.
– oligofren
Mar 6 '13 at 9:59
28
@AshBlue, we should usewindow.performance.now
. See stackoverflow.com/a/15641427/632951
– Pacerier
Nov 2 '13 at 2:17
|
show 9 more comments
9
Note that you can substitute +new Date() for the getTime() call: var start = +new Date(); // do stuff alert("Execution time: "+(+new Date())-start);
– J c
Nov 24 '08 at 13:00
47
Timings are not accurate because Date is not intended for this functionality. I'm going to be bold here and say you should use vsync's example if you want accurate timing. Although it only works in Chrome and Firefox ATM.
– Ash Blue
May 5 '12 at 2:17
9
Beware, the getMilliseconds() gives you the millisecond fraction of the current second. If you replace getTime() with getMilliseconds() you can get negative results if you cross a second.
– RickyA
Jan 10 '13 at 15:47
6
The answer by vsync is far more correct by todays standards, and using Date() can result in very erronous results being displayed, especially on the Windows platform where results may be rounded+floored to the nearest 15ms boundary, resulting in weird stuff such as 0ms timings on tiny code bits.
– oligofren
Mar 6 '13 at 9:59
28
@AshBlue, we should usewindow.performance.now
. See stackoverflow.com/a/15641427/632951
– Pacerier
Nov 2 '13 at 2:17
9
9
Note that you can substitute +new Date() for the getTime() call: var start = +new Date(); // do stuff alert("Execution time: "+(+new Date())-start);
– J c
Nov 24 '08 at 13:00
Note that you can substitute +new Date() for the getTime() call: var start = +new Date(); // do stuff alert("Execution time: "+(+new Date())-start);
– J c
Nov 24 '08 at 13:00
47
47
Timings are not accurate because Date is not intended for this functionality. I'm going to be bold here and say you should use vsync's example if you want accurate timing. Although it only works in Chrome and Firefox ATM.
– Ash Blue
May 5 '12 at 2:17
Timings are not accurate because Date is not intended for this functionality. I'm going to be bold here and say you should use vsync's example if you want accurate timing. Although it only works in Chrome and Firefox ATM.
– Ash Blue
May 5 '12 at 2:17
9
9
Beware, the getMilliseconds() gives you the millisecond fraction of the current second. If you replace getTime() with getMilliseconds() you can get negative results if you cross a second.
– RickyA
Jan 10 '13 at 15:47
Beware, the getMilliseconds() gives you the millisecond fraction of the current second. If you replace getTime() with getMilliseconds() you can get negative results if you cross a second.
– RickyA
Jan 10 '13 at 15:47
6
6
The answer by vsync is far more correct by todays standards, and using Date() can result in very erronous results being displayed, especially on the Windows platform where results may be rounded+floored to the nearest 15ms boundary, resulting in weird stuff such as 0ms timings on tiny code bits.
– oligofren
Mar 6 '13 at 9:59
The answer by vsync is far more correct by todays standards, and using Date() can result in very erronous results being displayed, especially on the Windows platform where results may be rounded+floored to the nearest 15ms boundary, resulting in weird stuff such as 0ms timings on tiny code bits.
– oligofren
Mar 6 '13 at 9:59
28
28
@AshBlue, we should use
window.performance.now
. See stackoverflow.com/a/15641427/632951– Pacerier
Nov 2 '13 at 2:17
@AshBlue, we should use
window.performance.now
. See stackoverflow.com/a/15641427/632951– Pacerier
Nov 2 '13 at 2:17
|
show 9 more comments
Don't use Date(). Read below.
Use performance.now()
:
<script>
var a = performance.now();
alert('do something...');
var b = performance.now();
alert('It took ' + (b - a) + ' ms.');
</script>
It works on:
IE 10 ++
FireFox 15 ++
Chrome 24 ++
Safari 8 ++
Opera 15 ++
Android 4.4 ++
etc, etc
console.time
may be viable for you, but it's non-standard §:
This feature is non-standard and is not on a standards track. Do not use it on production sites facing the Web: it will not work for every user. There may also be large incompatibilities between implementations and the behavior may change in the future.
Besides browser support, performance.now
seems to have the potential to provide more accurate timings as it appears to be the bare-bones version of console.time
.
<rant> Also, DON'T EVER use Date
for anything because it's affected by changes in "system time". Which means we will get invalid results —like "negative timing"— when the user doesn't have an accurate system time:
On Oct 2014, my system clock went haywire and guess what.... I opened Gmail and saw all of my day's emails "sent 0 minutes ago". And I'd thought Gmail is supposed to be built by world-class engineers from Google.......
(Set your system clock to one year ago and go to Gmail so we can all have a good laugh. Perhaps someday we will have a Hall of Shame for JS Date
.)
Google Spreadsheet's now()
function also suffers from this problem.
The only time you'll be using Date
is when you want to show the user his system clock time. Not when you want to get the time or to measure anything.
3
Just what I was looking for! I want to be able to add several times together, can't really do that with console times.
– Ray
Sep 29 '13 at 13:33
6
note that this isn't supported in safari yet: developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Performance.now()
– Akos K
Nov 1 '13 at 21:11
2
I use Firebug Profile and performance.now(), and they both work well. Performance.now() confirms my result from Profile.
– Vincent Jia
Feb 11 '14 at 10:01
2
Doesn't work in my biggest hangup, which is IE7 (corporate customers.) I don't care about measuring performance in chrome, it's always lightning fast.
– Nick
Mar 3 '14 at 18:27
2
This is a better way then console.time().
– Sanjeev
Jan 25 '15 at 12:15
|
show 2 more comments
Don't use Date(). Read below.
Use performance.now()
:
<script>
var a = performance.now();
alert('do something...');
var b = performance.now();
alert('It took ' + (b - a) + ' ms.');
</script>
It works on:
IE 10 ++
FireFox 15 ++
Chrome 24 ++
Safari 8 ++
Opera 15 ++
Android 4.4 ++
etc, etc
console.time
may be viable for you, but it's non-standard §:
This feature is non-standard and is not on a standards track. Do not use it on production sites facing the Web: it will not work for every user. There may also be large incompatibilities between implementations and the behavior may change in the future.
Besides browser support, performance.now
seems to have the potential to provide more accurate timings as it appears to be the bare-bones version of console.time
.
<rant> Also, DON'T EVER use Date
for anything because it's affected by changes in "system time". Which means we will get invalid results —like "negative timing"— when the user doesn't have an accurate system time:
On Oct 2014, my system clock went haywire and guess what.... I opened Gmail and saw all of my day's emails "sent 0 minutes ago". And I'd thought Gmail is supposed to be built by world-class engineers from Google.......
(Set your system clock to one year ago and go to Gmail so we can all have a good laugh. Perhaps someday we will have a Hall of Shame for JS Date
.)
Google Spreadsheet's now()
function also suffers from this problem.
The only time you'll be using Date
is when you want to show the user his system clock time. Not when you want to get the time or to measure anything.
3
Just what I was looking for! I want to be able to add several times together, can't really do that with console times.
– Ray
Sep 29 '13 at 13:33
6
note that this isn't supported in safari yet: developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Performance.now()
– Akos K
Nov 1 '13 at 21:11
2
I use Firebug Profile and performance.now(), and they both work well. Performance.now() confirms my result from Profile.
– Vincent Jia
Feb 11 '14 at 10:01
2
Doesn't work in my biggest hangup, which is IE7 (corporate customers.) I don't care about measuring performance in chrome, it's always lightning fast.
– Nick
Mar 3 '14 at 18:27
2
This is a better way then console.time().
– Sanjeev
Jan 25 '15 at 12:15
|
show 2 more comments
Don't use Date(). Read below.
Use performance.now()
:
<script>
var a = performance.now();
alert('do something...');
var b = performance.now();
alert('It took ' + (b - a) + ' ms.');
</script>
It works on:
IE 10 ++
FireFox 15 ++
Chrome 24 ++
Safari 8 ++
Opera 15 ++
Android 4.4 ++
etc, etc
console.time
may be viable for you, but it's non-standard §:
This feature is non-standard and is not on a standards track. Do not use it on production sites facing the Web: it will not work for every user. There may also be large incompatibilities between implementations and the behavior may change in the future.
Besides browser support, performance.now
seems to have the potential to provide more accurate timings as it appears to be the bare-bones version of console.time
.
<rant> Also, DON'T EVER use Date
for anything because it's affected by changes in "system time". Which means we will get invalid results —like "negative timing"— when the user doesn't have an accurate system time:
On Oct 2014, my system clock went haywire and guess what.... I opened Gmail and saw all of my day's emails "sent 0 minutes ago". And I'd thought Gmail is supposed to be built by world-class engineers from Google.......
(Set your system clock to one year ago and go to Gmail so we can all have a good laugh. Perhaps someday we will have a Hall of Shame for JS Date
.)
Google Spreadsheet's now()
function also suffers from this problem.
The only time you'll be using Date
is when you want to show the user his system clock time. Not when you want to get the time or to measure anything.
Don't use Date(). Read below.
Use performance.now()
:
<script>
var a = performance.now();
alert('do something...');
var b = performance.now();
alert('It took ' + (b - a) + ' ms.');
</script>
It works on:
IE 10 ++
FireFox 15 ++
Chrome 24 ++
Safari 8 ++
Opera 15 ++
Android 4.4 ++
etc, etc
console.time
may be viable for you, but it's non-standard §:
This feature is non-standard and is not on a standards track. Do not use it on production sites facing the Web: it will not work for every user. There may also be large incompatibilities between implementations and the behavior may change in the future.
Besides browser support, performance.now
seems to have the potential to provide more accurate timings as it appears to be the bare-bones version of console.time
.
<rant> Also, DON'T EVER use Date
for anything because it's affected by changes in "system time". Which means we will get invalid results —like "negative timing"— when the user doesn't have an accurate system time:
On Oct 2014, my system clock went haywire and guess what.... I opened Gmail and saw all of my day's emails "sent 0 minutes ago". And I'd thought Gmail is supposed to be built by world-class engineers from Google.......
(Set your system clock to one year ago and go to Gmail so we can all have a good laugh. Perhaps someday we will have a Hall of Shame for JS Date
.)
Google Spreadsheet's now()
function also suffers from this problem.
The only time you'll be using Date
is when you want to show the user his system clock time. Not when you want to get the time or to measure anything.
edited Dec 20 '14 at 17:55
answered Mar 26 '13 at 15:49
PacerierPacerier
44.2k51214518
44.2k51214518
3
Just what I was looking for! I want to be able to add several times together, can't really do that with console times.
– Ray
Sep 29 '13 at 13:33
6
note that this isn't supported in safari yet: developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Performance.now()
– Akos K
Nov 1 '13 at 21:11
2
I use Firebug Profile and performance.now(), and they both work well. Performance.now() confirms my result from Profile.
– Vincent Jia
Feb 11 '14 at 10:01
2
Doesn't work in my biggest hangup, which is IE7 (corporate customers.) I don't care about measuring performance in chrome, it's always lightning fast.
– Nick
Mar 3 '14 at 18:27
2
This is a better way then console.time().
– Sanjeev
Jan 25 '15 at 12:15
|
show 2 more comments
3
Just what I was looking for! I want to be able to add several times together, can't really do that with console times.
– Ray
Sep 29 '13 at 13:33
6
note that this isn't supported in safari yet: developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Performance.now()
– Akos K
Nov 1 '13 at 21:11
2
I use Firebug Profile and performance.now(), and they both work well. Performance.now() confirms my result from Profile.
– Vincent Jia
Feb 11 '14 at 10:01
2
Doesn't work in my biggest hangup, which is IE7 (corporate customers.) I don't care about measuring performance in chrome, it's always lightning fast.
– Nick
Mar 3 '14 at 18:27
2
This is a better way then console.time().
– Sanjeev
Jan 25 '15 at 12:15
3
3
Just what I was looking for! I want to be able to add several times together, can't really do that with console times.
– Ray
Sep 29 '13 at 13:33
Just what I was looking for! I want to be able to add several times together, can't really do that with console times.
– Ray
Sep 29 '13 at 13:33
6
6
note that this isn't supported in safari yet: developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Performance.now()
– Akos K
Nov 1 '13 at 21:11
note that this isn't supported in safari yet: developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Performance.now()
– Akos K
Nov 1 '13 at 21:11
2
2
I use Firebug Profile and performance.now(), and they both work well. Performance.now() confirms my result from Profile.
– Vincent Jia
Feb 11 '14 at 10:01
I use Firebug Profile and performance.now(), and they both work well. Performance.now() confirms my result from Profile.
– Vincent Jia
Feb 11 '14 at 10:01
2
2
Doesn't work in my biggest hangup, which is IE7 (corporate customers.) I don't care about measuring performance in chrome, it's always lightning fast.
– Nick
Mar 3 '14 at 18:27
Doesn't work in my biggest hangup, which is IE7 (corporate customers.) I don't care about measuring performance in chrome, it's always lightning fast.
– Nick
Mar 3 '14 at 18:27
2
2
This is a better way then console.time().
– Sanjeev
Jan 25 '15 at 12:15
This is a better way then console.time().
– Sanjeev
Jan 25 '15 at 12:15
|
show 2 more comments
If you need to get function execution time on your local development machine, you can either use your browser's profiling tools, or console commands such as console.time()
and console.timeEnd()
.
All modern browsers have JavaScript profilers built-in. These profilers should give the most accurate measurement as you do not have to modify your existing code, which could affect the function's execution time.
To profile your JavaScript:
- In Chrome, press F12 and select the Profiles tab, then Collect JavaScript CPU Profile.
- In Firefox, install/open Firebug, and click on the Profile button.
- In IE 9+, press F12, click on Script or Profiler (depending on your version of IE).
Alternatively, on your development machine, you can add instrumentation to your code with console.time()
and console.timeEnd()
. These functions, supported in Firefox11+, Chrome2+ and IE11+, report on timers that you start/stop via console.time()
. time()
takes a user-defined timer name as an argument, and timeEnd()
then reports on the execution time since the timer started:
function a() {
console.time("mytimer");
... do stuff ...
var dur = console.timeEnd("myTimer"); // NOTE: dur only works in FF
}
Note that only Firefox returns the elapsed time in the timeEnd()
call. The other browsers simply report the result to the developer console: the return value of timeEnd()
is undefined.
If you want to get function execution time in the wild, you will have to instrument your code. You have a couple options. You can simply save the start and end times by querying new Date().getTime()
:
function a() {
var start = new Date().getTime();
... do stuff ...
var end = new Date().getTime();
var dur = end - start;
}
However, the Date
object only has millisecond resolution and will be affected by any OS's system clock changes. In modern browsers, there's a better option.
The better option is to use the High Resolution Time, aka window.performance.now()
. now()
is better than the traditional Date.getTime()
in two important ways:
now()
is a double with submillisecond resolution that represents the number of milliseconds since the start of the page's navigation. It returns the number of microseconds in the fractional (e.g. a value of 1000.123 is 1 second and 123 microseconds).now()
is monotonically increasing. This is important asDate.getTime()
can possibly jump forward or even backward on subsequent calls. Notably, if the OS's system time is updated (e.g. atomic clock synchronization),Date.getTime()
is also updated.now()
is guaranteed to always be monotonically increasing, so it is not affected by the OS's system time -- it will always be wall-clock time (assuming your wall clock is not atomic...).
now()
can be used in almost every place that new Date().getTime()
, + new Date
andt Date.now()
are. The exception is that Date
and now()
times don't mix, as Date
is based on unix-epoch (the number of milliseconds since 1970), while now()
is the number of milliseconds since your page navigation started (so it will be much smaller than Date
).
Here's an example of how to use now()
:
function a() {
var start = window.performance.now();
... do stuff ...
var end = window.performance.now();
var dur = end - start;
}
now()
is supported in Chrome stable, Firefox 15+, and IE10. There are also several polyfills available.
One other option for measuring execution time in the wild is UserTiming. UserTiming behaves similarly to console.time()
and console.timeEnd()
, but it utilizes the same High Resolution Timestamp that now()
uses (so you get a sub-millisecond monotonically increasing clock), and saves the timestamps and durations to the PerformanceTimeline.
UserTiming has the concepts of marks (timestamps) and measures (durations). You can define as many of either as you want, and they're exposed on the PerformanceTimeline.
To save a timestamp, you call mark(startMarkName)
. To get the duration since your first mark, you simply call measure(measurename, startMarkname)
. The duration is then saved in the PerformanceTimeline alongside your marks.
function a() {
window.performance.mark("start");
... do stuff ...
window.performance.measure("myfunctionduration", "start");
}
// duration is window.performance.getEntriesByName("myfunctionduration", "measure")[0];
UserTiming is available in IE10+ and Chrome25+. There is also a polyfill available (which I wrote).
1
Excellent and most current answer IMHO :) It would be even better with a bit of editing. I'd say that user timing is not "one other option" for measuring, but the preferred option when the benchmarking is not done on the development machine itself. With your polyfill it works across all browsers. And hiding away the details and boilerplate ofperformance.now
andDate
is the reason it exists.
– hashchange
Jul 19 '14 at 10:10
add a comment |
If you need to get function execution time on your local development machine, you can either use your browser's profiling tools, or console commands such as console.time()
and console.timeEnd()
.
All modern browsers have JavaScript profilers built-in. These profilers should give the most accurate measurement as you do not have to modify your existing code, which could affect the function's execution time.
To profile your JavaScript:
- In Chrome, press F12 and select the Profiles tab, then Collect JavaScript CPU Profile.
- In Firefox, install/open Firebug, and click on the Profile button.
- In IE 9+, press F12, click on Script or Profiler (depending on your version of IE).
Alternatively, on your development machine, you can add instrumentation to your code with console.time()
and console.timeEnd()
. These functions, supported in Firefox11+, Chrome2+ and IE11+, report on timers that you start/stop via console.time()
. time()
takes a user-defined timer name as an argument, and timeEnd()
then reports on the execution time since the timer started:
function a() {
console.time("mytimer");
... do stuff ...
var dur = console.timeEnd("myTimer"); // NOTE: dur only works in FF
}
Note that only Firefox returns the elapsed time in the timeEnd()
call. The other browsers simply report the result to the developer console: the return value of timeEnd()
is undefined.
If you want to get function execution time in the wild, you will have to instrument your code. You have a couple options. You can simply save the start and end times by querying new Date().getTime()
:
function a() {
var start = new Date().getTime();
... do stuff ...
var end = new Date().getTime();
var dur = end - start;
}
However, the Date
object only has millisecond resolution and will be affected by any OS's system clock changes. In modern browsers, there's a better option.
The better option is to use the High Resolution Time, aka window.performance.now()
. now()
is better than the traditional Date.getTime()
in two important ways:
now()
is a double with submillisecond resolution that represents the number of milliseconds since the start of the page's navigation. It returns the number of microseconds in the fractional (e.g. a value of 1000.123 is 1 second and 123 microseconds).now()
is monotonically increasing. This is important asDate.getTime()
can possibly jump forward or even backward on subsequent calls. Notably, if the OS's system time is updated (e.g. atomic clock synchronization),Date.getTime()
is also updated.now()
is guaranteed to always be monotonically increasing, so it is not affected by the OS's system time -- it will always be wall-clock time (assuming your wall clock is not atomic...).
now()
can be used in almost every place that new Date().getTime()
, + new Date
andt Date.now()
are. The exception is that Date
and now()
times don't mix, as Date
is based on unix-epoch (the number of milliseconds since 1970), while now()
is the number of milliseconds since your page navigation started (so it will be much smaller than Date
).
Here's an example of how to use now()
:
function a() {
var start = window.performance.now();
... do stuff ...
var end = window.performance.now();
var dur = end - start;
}
now()
is supported in Chrome stable, Firefox 15+, and IE10. There are also several polyfills available.
One other option for measuring execution time in the wild is UserTiming. UserTiming behaves similarly to console.time()
and console.timeEnd()
, but it utilizes the same High Resolution Timestamp that now()
uses (so you get a sub-millisecond monotonically increasing clock), and saves the timestamps and durations to the PerformanceTimeline.
UserTiming has the concepts of marks (timestamps) and measures (durations). You can define as many of either as you want, and they're exposed on the PerformanceTimeline.
To save a timestamp, you call mark(startMarkName)
. To get the duration since your first mark, you simply call measure(measurename, startMarkname)
. The duration is then saved in the PerformanceTimeline alongside your marks.
function a() {
window.performance.mark("start");
... do stuff ...
window.performance.measure("myfunctionduration", "start");
}
// duration is window.performance.getEntriesByName("myfunctionduration", "measure")[0];
UserTiming is available in IE10+ and Chrome25+. There is also a polyfill available (which I wrote).
1
Excellent and most current answer IMHO :) It would be even better with a bit of editing. I'd say that user timing is not "one other option" for measuring, but the preferred option when the benchmarking is not done on the development machine itself. With your polyfill it works across all browsers. And hiding away the details and boilerplate ofperformance.now
andDate
is the reason it exists.
– hashchange
Jul 19 '14 at 10:10
add a comment |
If you need to get function execution time on your local development machine, you can either use your browser's profiling tools, or console commands such as console.time()
and console.timeEnd()
.
All modern browsers have JavaScript profilers built-in. These profilers should give the most accurate measurement as you do not have to modify your existing code, which could affect the function's execution time.
To profile your JavaScript:
- In Chrome, press F12 and select the Profiles tab, then Collect JavaScript CPU Profile.
- In Firefox, install/open Firebug, and click on the Profile button.
- In IE 9+, press F12, click on Script or Profiler (depending on your version of IE).
Alternatively, on your development machine, you can add instrumentation to your code with console.time()
and console.timeEnd()
. These functions, supported in Firefox11+, Chrome2+ and IE11+, report on timers that you start/stop via console.time()
. time()
takes a user-defined timer name as an argument, and timeEnd()
then reports on the execution time since the timer started:
function a() {
console.time("mytimer");
... do stuff ...
var dur = console.timeEnd("myTimer"); // NOTE: dur only works in FF
}
Note that only Firefox returns the elapsed time in the timeEnd()
call. The other browsers simply report the result to the developer console: the return value of timeEnd()
is undefined.
If you want to get function execution time in the wild, you will have to instrument your code. You have a couple options. You can simply save the start and end times by querying new Date().getTime()
:
function a() {
var start = new Date().getTime();
... do stuff ...
var end = new Date().getTime();
var dur = end - start;
}
However, the Date
object only has millisecond resolution and will be affected by any OS's system clock changes. In modern browsers, there's a better option.
The better option is to use the High Resolution Time, aka window.performance.now()
. now()
is better than the traditional Date.getTime()
in two important ways:
now()
is a double with submillisecond resolution that represents the number of milliseconds since the start of the page's navigation. It returns the number of microseconds in the fractional (e.g. a value of 1000.123 is 1 second and 123 microseconds).now()
is monotonically increasing. This is important asDate.getTime()
can possibly jump forward or even backward on subsequent calls. Notably, if the OS's system time is updated (e.g. atomic clock synchronization),Date.getTime()
is also updated.now()
is guaranteed to always be monotonically increasing, so it is not affected by the OS's system time -- it will always be wall-clock time (assuming your wall clock is not atomic...).
now()
can be used in almost every place that new Date().getTime()
, + new Date
andt Date.now()
are. The exception is that Date
and now()
times don't mix, as Date
is based on unix-epoch (the number of milliseconds since 1970), while now()
is the number of milliseconds since your page navigation started (so it will be much smaller than Date
).
Here's an example of how to use now()
:
function a() {
var start = window.performance.now();
... do stuff ...
var end = window.performance.now();
var dur = end - start;
}
now()
is supported in Chrome stable, Firefox 15+, and IE10. There are also several polyfills available.
One other option for measuring execution time in the wild is UserTiming. UserTiming behaves similarly to console.time()
and console.timeEnd()
, but it utilizes the same High Resolution Timestamp that now()
uses (so you get a sub-millisecond monotonically increasing clock), and saves the timestamps and durations to the PerformanceTimeline.
UserTiming has the concepts of marks (timestamps) and measures (durations). You can define as many of either as you want, and they're exposed on the PerformanceTimeline.
To save a timestamp, you call mark(startMarkName)
. To get the duration since your first mark, you simply call measure(measurename, startMarkname)
. The duration is then saved in the PerformanceTimeline alongside your marks.
function a() {
window.performance.mark("start");
... do stuff ...
window.performance.measure("myfunctionduration", "start");
}
// duration is window.performance.getEntriesByName("myfunctionduration", "measure")[0];
UserTiming is available in IE10+ and Chrome25+. There is also a polyfill available (which I wrote).
If you need to get function execution time on your local development machine, you can either use your browser's profiling tools, or console commands such as console.time()
and console.timeEnd()
.
All modern browsers have JavaScript profilers built-in. These profilers should give the most accurate measurement as you do not have to modify your existing code, which could affect the function's execution time.
To profile your JavaScript:
- In Chrome, press F12 and select the Profiles tab, then Collect JavaScript CPU Profile.
- In Firefox, install/open Firebug, and click on the Profile button.
- In IE 9+, press F12, click on Script or Profiler (depending on your version of IE).
Alternatively, on your development machine, you can add instrumentation to your code with console.time()
and console.timeEnd()
. These functions, supported in Firefox11+, Chrome2+ and IE11+, report on timers that you start/stop via console.time()
. time()
takes a user-defined timer name as an argument, and timeEnd()
then reports on the execution time since the timer started:
function a() {
console.time("mytimer");
... do stuff ...
var dur = console.timeEnd("myTimer"); // NOTE: dur only works in FF
}
Note that only Firefox returns the elapsed time in the timeEnd()
call. The other browsers simply report the result to the developer console: the return value of timeEnd()
is undefined.
If you want to get function execution time in the wild, you will have to instrument your code. You have a couple options. You can simply save the start and end times by querying new Date().getTime()
:
function a() {
var start = new Date().getTime();
... do stuff ...
var end = new Date().getTime();
var dur = end - start;
}
However, the Date
object only has millisecond resolution and will be affected by any OS's system clock changes. In modern browsers, there's a better option.
The better option is to use the High Resolution Time, aka window.performance.now()
. now()
is better than the traditional Date.getTime()
in two important ways:
now()
is a double with submillisecond resolution that represents the number of milliseconds since the start of the page's navigation. It returns the number of microseconds in the fractional (e.g. a value of 1000.123 is 1 second and 123 microseconds).now()
is monotonically increasing. This is important asDate.getTime()
can possibly jump forward or even backward on subsequent calls. Notably, if the OS's system time is updated (e.g. atomic clock synchronization),Date.getTime()
is also updated.now()
is guaranteed to always be monotonically increasing, so it is not affected by the OS's system time -- it will always be wall-clock time (assuming your wall clock is not atomic...).
now()
can be used in almost every place that new Date().getTime()
, + new Date
andt Date.now()
are. The exception is that Date
and now()
times don't mix, as Date
is based on unix-epoch (the number of milliseconds since 1970), while now()
is the number of milliseconds since your page navigation started (so it will be much smaller than Date
).
Here's an example of how to use now()
:
function a() {
var start = window.performance.now();
... do stuff ...
var end = window.performance.now();
var dur = end - start;
}
now()
is supported in Chrome stable, Firefox 15+, and IE10. There are also several polyfills available.
One other option for measuring execution time in the wild is UserTiming. UserTiming behaves similarly to console.time()
and console.timeEnd()
, but it utilizes the same High Resolution Timestamp that now()
uses (so you get a sub-millisecond monotonically increasing clock), and saves the timestamps and durations to the PerformanceTimeline.
UserTiming has the concepts of marks (timestamps) and measures (durations). You can define as many of either as you want, and they're exposed on the PerformanceTimeline.
To save a timestamp, you call mark(startMarkName)
. To get the duration since your first mark, you simply call measure(measurename, startMarkname)
. The duration is then saved in the PerformanceTimeline alongside your marks.
function a() {
window.performance.mark("start");
... do stuff ...
window.performance.measure("myfunctionduration", "start");
}
// duration is window.performance.getEntriesByName("myfunctionduration", "measure")[0];
UserTiming is available in IE10+ and Chrome25+. There is also a polyfill available (which I wrote).
answered Jan 14 '14 at 19:01
NicJNicJ
3,16212018
3,16212018
1
Excellent and most current answer IMHO :) It would be even better with a bit of editing. I'd say that user timing is not "one other option" for measuring, but the preferred option when the benchmarking is not done on the development machine itself. With your polyfill it works across all browsers. And hiding away the details and boilerplate ofperformance.now
andDate
is the reason it exists.
– hashchange
Jul 19 '14 at 10:10
add a comment |
1
Excellent and most current answer IMHO :) It would be even better with a bit of editing. I'd say that user timing is not "one other option" for measuring, but the preferred option when the benchmarking is not done on the development machine itself. With your polyfill it works across all browsers. And hiding away the details and boilerplate ofperformance.now
andDate
is the reason it exists.
– hashchange
Jul 19 '14 at 10:10
1
1
Excellent and most current answer IMHO :) It would be even better with a bit of editing. I'd say that user timing is not "one other option" for measuring, but the preferred option when the benchmarking is not done on the development machine itself. With your polyfill it works across all browsers. And hiding away the details and boilerplate of
performance.now
and Date
is the reason it exists.– hashchange
Jul 19 '14 at 10:10
Excellent and most current answer IMHO :) It would be even better with a bit of editing. I'd say that user timing is not "one other option" for measuring, but the preferred option when the benchmarking is not done on the development machine itself. With your polyfill it works across all browsers. And hiding away the details and boilerplate of
performance.now
and Date
is the reason it exists.– hashchange
Jul 19 '14 at 10:10
add a comment |
To get precise values you should use Performance interface. It's supported in modern versions of Firefox, Chrome, Opera and IE. Here's an example of how it can be used:
var performance = window.performance;
var t0 = performance.now();
doWork();
var t1 = performance.now();
console.log("Call to doWork took " + (t1 - t0) + " milliseconds.")
Date.getTime()
or console.time()
are not good for measuring precise execution time. You can use them if quick rough estimate is OK for you. By rough estimate I mean you can get 15-60 ms shift from the real time.
Check this brilliant post on measuring execution time in JavaScript. The author also gives a couple of links about accuracy of JavaScript time, worth reading.
add a comment |
To get precise values you should use Performance interface. It's supported in modern versions of Firefox, Chrome, Opera and IE. Here's an example of how it can be used:
var performance = window.performance;
var t0 = performance.now();
doWork();
var t1 = performance.now();
console.log("Call to doWork took " + (t1 - t0) + " milliseconds.")
Date.getTime()
or console.time()
are not good for measuring precise execution time. You can use them if quick rough estimate is OK for you. By rough estimate I mean you can get 15-60 ms shift from the real time.
Check this brilliant post on measuring execution time in JavaScript. The author also gives a couple of links about accuracy of JavaScript time, worth reading.
add a comment |
To get precise values you should use Performance interface. It's supported in modern versions of Firefox, Chrome, Opera and IE. Here's an example of how it can be used:
var performance = window.performance;
var t0 = performance.now();
doWork();
var t1 = performance.now();
console.log("Call to doWork took " + (t1 - t0) + " milliseconds.")
Date.getTime()
or console.time()
are not good for measuring precise execution time. You can use them if quick rough estimate is OK for you. By rough estimate I mean you can get 15-60 ms shift from the real time.
Check this brilliant post on measuring execution time in JavaScript. The author also gives a couple of links about accuracy of JavaScript time, worth reading.
To get precise values you should use Performance interface. It's supported in modern versions of Firefox, Chrome, Opera and IE. Here's an example of how it can be used:
var performance = window.performance;
var t0 = performance.now();
doWork();
var t1 = performance.now();
console.log("Call to doWork took " + (t1 - t0) + " milliseconds.")
Date.getTime()
or console.time()
are not good for measuring precise execution time. You can use them if quick rough estimate is OK for you. By rough estimate I mean you can get 15-60 ms shift from the real time.
Check this brilliant post on measuring execution time in JavaScript. The author also gives a couple of links about accuracy of JavaScript time, worth reading.
edited Oct 6 '16 at 21:11
Aaron Hudon
1,91912533
1,91912533
answered Feb 26 '15 at 16:13
Varvara KalininaVarvara Kalinina
1,3561123
1,3561123
add a comment |
add a comment |
Use Firebug, enable both Console and Javascript. Click Profile. Reload. Click Profile again. View the report.
7
Good advice but obviously works only for FF. We often want to compare browser speeds... :-)
– PhiLho
Nov 24 '08 at 11:27
3
On new Firebuq they hide this options to menu, use CTRL + SHIFT + P or console.profile(); console..profileEnd()
– user956584
Feb 29 '12 at 8:25
3
Chrome supportsconsole.time()
andconsole.timeEnd()
too now.
– julien_c
Mar 15 '12 at 11:01
add a comment |
Use Firebug, enable both Console and Javascript. Click Profile. Reload. Click Profile again. View the report.
7
Good advice but obviously works only for FF. We often want to compare browser speeds... :-)
– PhiLho
Nov 24 '08 at 11:27
3
On new Firebuq they hide this options to menu, use CTRL + SHIFT + P or console.profile(); console..profileEnd()
– user956584
Feb 29 '12 at 8:25
3
Chrome supportsconsole.time()
andconsole.timeEnd()
too now.
– julien_c
Mar 15 '12 at 11:01
add a comment |
Use Firebug, enable both Console and Javascript. Click Profile. Reload. Click Profile again. View the report.
Use Firebug, enable both Console and Javascript. Click Profile. Reload. Click Profile again. View the report.
answered Nov 24 '08 at 11:14
Stefan MaiStefan Mai
17.3k64453
17.3k64453
7
Good advice but obviously works only for FF. We often want to compare browser speeds... :-)
– PhiLho
Nov 24 '08 at 11:27
3
On new Firebuq they hide this options to menu, use CTRL + SHIFT + P or console.profile(); console..profileEnd()
– user956584
Feb 29 '12 at 8:25
3
Chrome supportsconsole.time()
andconsole.timeEnd()
too now.
– julien_c
Mar 15 '12 at 11:01
add a comment |
7
Good advice but obviously works only for FF. We often want to compare browser speeds... :-)
– PhiLho
Nov 24 '08 at 11:27
3
On new Firebuq they hide this options to menu, use CTRL + SHIFT + P or console.profile(); console..profileEnd()
– user956584
Feb 29 '12 at 8:25
3
Chrome supportsconsole.time()
andconsole.timeEnd()
too now.
– julien_c
Mar 15 '12 at 11:01
7
7
Good advice but obviously works only for FF. We often want to compare browser speeds... :-)
– PhiLho
Nov 24 '08 at 11:27
Good advice but obviously works only for FF. We often want to compare browser speeds... :-)
– PhiLho
Nov 24 '08 at 11:27
3
3
On new Firebuq they hide this options to menu, use CTRL + SHIFT + P or console.profile(); console..profileEnd()
– user956584
Feb 29 '12 at 8:25
On new Firebuq they hide this options to menu, use CTRL + SHIFT + P or console.profile(); console..profileEnd()
– user956584
Feb 29 '12 at 8:25
3
3
Chrome supports
console.time()
and console.timeEnd()
too now.– julien_c
Mar 15 '12 at 11:01
Chrome supports
console.time()
and console.timeEnd()
too now.– julien_c
Mar 15 '12 at 11:01
add a comment |
var StopWatch = function (performance) {
this.startTime = 0;
this.stopTime = 0;
this.running = false;
this.performance = performance === false ? false : !!window.performance;
};
StopWatch.prototype.currentTime = function () {
return this.performance ? window.performance.now() : new Date().getTime();
};
StopWatch.prototype.start = function () {
this.startTime = this.currentTime();
this.running = true;
};
StopWatch.prototype.stop = function () {
this.stopTime = this.currentTime();
this.running = false;
};
StopWatch.prototype.getElapsedMilliseconds = function () {
if (this.running) {
this.stopTime = this.currentTime();
}
return this.stopTime - this.startTime;
};
StopWatch.prototype.getElapsedSeconds = function () {
return this.getElapsedMilliseconds() / 1000;
};
StopWatch.prototype.printElapsed = function (name) {
var currentName = name || 'Elapsed:';
console.log(currentName, '[' + this.getElapsedMilliseconds() + 'ms]', '[' + this.getElapsedSeconds() + 's]');
};
Benchmark
var stopwatch = new StopWatch();
stopwatch.start();
for (var index = 0; index < 100; index++) {
stopwatch.printElapsed('Instance[' + index + ']');
}
stopwatch.stop();
stopwatch.printElapsed();
Output
Instance[0] [0ms] [0s]
Instance[1] [2.999999967869371ms] [0.002999999967869371s]
Instance[2] [2.999999967869371ms] [0.002999999967869371s]
/* ... */
Instance[99] [10.999999998603016ms] [0.010999999998603016s]
Elapsed: [10.999999998603016ms] [0.010999999998603016s]
performance.now() is optional - just pass false into StopWatch constructor function.
add a comment |
var StopWatch = function (performance) {
this.startTime = 0;
this.stopTime = 0;
this.running = false;
this.performance = performance === false ? false : !!window.performance;
};
StopWatch.prototype.currentTime = function () {
return this.performance ? window.performance.now() : new Date().getTime();
};
StopWatch.prototype.start = function () {
this.startTime = this.currentTime();
this.running = true;
};
StopWatch.prototype.stop = function () {
this.stopTime = this.currentTime();
this.running = false;
};
StopWatch.prototype.getElapsedMilliseconds = function () {
if (this.running) {
this.stopTime = this.currentTime();
}
return this.stopTime - this.startTime;
};
StopWatch.prototype.getElapsedSeconds = function () {
return this.getElapsedMilliseconds() / 1000;
};
StopWatch.prototype.printElapsed = function (name) {
var currentName = name || 'Elapsed:';
console.log(currentName, '[' + this.getElapsedMilliseconds() + 'ms]', '[' + this.getElapsedSeconds() + 's]');
};
Benchmark
var stopwatch = new StopWatch();
stopwatch.start();
for (var index = 0; index < 100; index++) {
stopwatch.printElapsed('Instance[' + index + ']');
}
stopwatch.stop();
stopwatch.printElapsed();
Output
Instance[0] [0ms] [0s]
Instance[1] [2.999999967869371ms] [0.002999999967869371s]
Instance[2] [2.999999967869371ms] [0.002999999967869371s]
/* ... */
Instance[99] [10.999999998603016ms] [0.010999999998603016s]
Elapsed: [10.999999998603016ms] [0.010999999998603016s]
performance.now() is optional - just pass false into StopWatch constructor function.
add a comment |
var StopWatch = function (performance) {
this.startTime = 0;
this.stopTime = 0;
this.running = false;
this.performance = performance === false ? false : !!window.performance;
};
StopWatch.prototype.currentTime = function () {
return this.performance ? window.performance.now() : new Date().getTime();
};
StopWatch.prototype.start = function () {
this.startTime = this.currentTime();
this.running = true;
};
StopWatch.prototype.stop = function () {
this.stopTime = this.currentTime();
this.running = false;
};
StopWatch.prototype.getElapsedMilliseconds = function () {
if (this.running) {
this.stopTime = this.currentTime();
}
return this.stopTime - this.startTime;
};
StopWatch.prototype.getElapsedSeconds = function () {
return this.getElapsedMilliseconds() / 1000;
};
StopWatch.prototype.printElapsed = function (name) {
var currentName = name || 'Elapsed:';
console.log(currentName, '[' + this.getElapsedMilliseconds() + 'ms]', '[' + this.getElapsedSeconds() + 's]');
};
Benchmark
var stopwatch = new StopWatch();
stopwatch.start();
for (var index = 0; index < 100; index++) {
stopwatch.printElapsed('Instance[' + index + ']');
}
stopwatch.stop();
stopwatch.printElapsed();
Output
Instance[0] [0ms] [0s]
Instance[1] [2.999999967869371ms] [0.002999999967869371s]
Instance[2] [2.999999967869371ms] [0.002999999967869371s]
/* ... */
Instance[99] [10.999999998603016ms] [0.010999999998603016s]
Elapsed: [10.999999998603016ms] [0.010999999998603016s]
performance.now() is optional - just pass false into StopWatch constructor function.
var StopWatch = function (performance) {
this.startTime = 0;
this.stopTime = 0;
this.running = false;
this.performance = performance === false ? false : !!window.performance;
};
StopWatch.prototype.currentTime = function () {
return this.performance ? window.performance.now() : new Date().getTime();
};
StopWatch.prototype.start = function () {
this.startTime = this.currentTime();
this.running = true;
};
StopWatch.prototype.stop = function () {
this.stopTime = this.currentTime();
this.running = false;
};
StopWatch.prototype.getElapsedMilliseconds = function () {
if (this.running) {
this.stopTime = this.currentTime();
}
return this.stopTime - this.startTime;
};
StopWatch.prototype.getElapsedSeconds = function () {
return this.getElapsedMilliseconds() / 1000;
};
StopWatch.prototype.printElapsed = function (name) {
var currentName = name || 'Elapsed:';
console.log(currentName, '[' + this.getElapsedMilliseconds() + 'ms]', '[' + this.getElapsedSeconds() + 's]');
};
Benchmark
var stopwatch = new StopWatch();
stopwatch.start();
for (var index = 0; index < 100; index++) {
stopwatch.printElapsed('Instance[' + index + ']');
}
stopwatch.stop();
stopwatch.printElapsed();
Output
Instance[0] [0ms] [0s]
Instance[1] [2.999999967869371ms] [0.002999999967869371s]
Instance[2] [2.999999967869371ms] [0.002999999967869371s]
/* ... */
Instance[99] [10.999999998603016ms] [0.010999999998603016s]
Elapsed: [10.999999998603016ms] [0.010999999998603016s]
performance.now() is optional - just pass false into StopWatch constructor function.
answered Aug 8 '13 at 18:54
kayz1kayz1
5,72523848
5,72523848
add a comment |
add a comment |
process.hrtime() is available within Node.js - it returns a value in nanoseconds
var hrTime = process.hrtime()
console.log(hrTime[0] * 1000000 + hrTime[1] / 1000)
if you rather convert it to ms e-3 rather than the suggested microsecond e-6:hrtime[0] * 1000 + hrtime[1] / 1000000
-> yeah, I rather usevar hrtime
as well! :P
– cregox
Mar 25 '17 at 14:21
add a comment |
process.hrtime() is available within Node.js - it returns a value in nanoseconds
var hrTime = process.hrtime()
console.log(hrTime[0] * 1000000 + hrTime[1] / 1000)
if you rather convert it to ms e-3 rather than the suggested microsecond e-6:hrtime[0] * 1000 + hrtime[1] / 1000000
-> yeah, I rather usevar hrtime
as well! :P
– cregox
Mar 25 '17 at 14:21
add a comment |
process.hrtime() is available within Node.js - it returns a value in nanoseconds
var hrTime = process.hrtime()
console.log(hrTime[0] * 1000000 + hrTime[1] / 1000)
process.hrtime() is available within Node.js - it returns a value in nanoseconds
var hrTime = process.hrtime()
console.log(hrTime[0] * 1000000 + hrTime[1] / 1000)
edited Sep 29 '16 at 7:58
Pang
6,9011664102
6,9011664102
answered Mar 11 '15 at 9:49
Achim KoellnerAchim Koellner
520918
520918
if you rather convert it to ms e-3 rather than the suggested microsecond e-6:hrtime[0] * 1000 + hrtime[1] / 1000000
-> yeah, I rather usevar hrtime
as well! :P
– cregox
Mar 25 '17 at 14:21
add a comment |
if you rather convert it to ms e-3 rather than the suggested microsecond e-6:hrtime[0] * 1000 + hrtime[1] / 1000000
-> yeah, I rather usevar hrtime
as well! :P
– cregox
Mar 25 '17 at 14:21
if you rather convert it to ms e-3 rather than the suggested microsecond e-6:
hrtime[0] * 1000 + hrtime[1] / 1000000
-> yeah, I rather use var hrtime
as well! :P– cregox
Mar 25 '17 at 14:21
if you rather convert it to ms e-3 rather than the suggested microsecond e-6:
hrtime[0] * 1000 + hrtime[1] / 1000000
-> yeah, I rather use var hrtime
as well! :P– cregox
Mar 25 '17 at 14:21
add a comment |
To extend vsync's code further to have the ability to return the timeEnd as a value in NodeJS use this little piece of code.
console.timeEndValue = function(label) { // Add console.timeEndValue, to add a return value
var time = this._times[label];
if (!time) {
throw new Error('No such label: ' + label);
}
var duration = Date.now() - time;
return duration;
};
Now use the code like so:
console.time('someFunction timer');
someFunction();
var executionTime = console.timeEndValue('someFunction timer');
console.log("The execution time is " + executionTime);
This gives you more possibilities. You can store the execution time to be used for more purposes like using it in equations, or stored in a database, sent to a remote client over websockets, served on a webpage, etc.
add a comment |
To extend vsync's code further to have the ability to return the timeEnd as a value in NodeJS use this little piece of code.
console.timeEndValue = function(label) { // Add console.timeEndValue, to add a return value
var time = this._times[label];
if (!time) {
throw new Error('No such label: ' + label);
}
var duration = Date.now() - time;
return duration;
};
Now use the code like so:
console.time('someFunction timer');
someFunction();
var executionTime = console.timeEndValue('someFunction timer');
console.log("The execution time is " + executionTime);
This gives you more possibilities. You can store the execution time to be used for more purposes like using it in equations, or stored in a database, sent to a remote client over websockets, served on a webpage, etc.
add a comment |
To extend vsync's code further to have the ability to return the timeEnd as a value in NodeJS use this little piece of code.
console.timeEndValue = function(label) { // Add console.timeEndValue, to add a return value
var time = this._times[label];
if (!time) {
throw new Error('No such label: ' + label);
}
var duration = Date.now() - time;
return duration;
};
Now use the code like so:
console.time('someFunction timer');
someFunction();
var executionTime = console.timeEndValue('someFunction timer');
console.log("The execution time is " + executionTime);
This gives you more possibilities. You can store the execution time to be used for more purposes like using it in equations, or stored in a database, sent to a remote client over websockets, served on a webpage, etc.
To extend vsync's code further to have the ability to return the timeEnd as a value in NodeJS use this little piece of code.
console.timeEndValue = function(label) { // Add console.timeEndValue, to add a return value
var time = this._times[label];
if (!time) {
throw new Error('No such label: ' + label);
}
var duration = Date.now() - time;
return duration;
};
Now use the code like so:
console.time('someFunction timer');
someFunction();
var executionTime = console.timeEndValue('someFunction timer');
console.log("The execution time is " + executionTime);
This gives you more possibilities. You can store the execution time to be used for more purposes like using it in equations, or stored in a database, sent to a remote client over websockets, served on a webpage, etc.
answered Aug 4 '13 at 4:23
Levi RobertsLevi Roberts
77521435
77521435
add a comment |
add a comment |
you can use add operator also here
var start = +new Date();
callYourFunctionHere();
var end = +new Date();
var time = end - start;
console.log('total execution time = '+ time + 'ms');
add a comment |
you can use add operator also here
var start = +new Date();
callYourFunctionHere();
var end = +new Date();
var time = end - start;
console.log('total execution time = '+ time + 'ms');
add a comment |
you can use add operator also here
var start = +new Date();
callYourFunctionHere();
var end = +new Date();
var time = end - start;
console.log('total execution time = '+ time + 'ms');
you can use add operator also here
var start = +new Date();
callYourFunctionHere();
var end = +new Date();
var time = end - start;
console.log('total execution time = '+ time + 'ms');
edited Nov 13 '18 at 18:53
answered Jul 2 '18 at 11:56
Alok DeshwalAlok Deshwal
474314
474314
add a comment |
add a comment |
Since console.time
and performance.now
aren't supported in some major browsers (i.e. IE10), I created a slim utility that utilizes the best available methods. However, it lacks error handling for false usages (calling End()
on a not initialized timer).
Use it and improve it as you want.
Performance: {
Timer: {},
Start: function (name) {
if (console && console.time) {
console.time(name);
} else if (window.performance.now) {
this.Timer[name] = window.performance.now();
} else {
this.Timer[name] = new Date().getTime();
}
},
End: function (name) {
if (console && console.time) {
console.timeEnd(name);
} else {
var result;
if (window.performance.now) {
result = window.performance.now() - this.Timer[name];
} else {
result = new Date().getTime() - this.Timer[name];
}
console.log(name + ": " + result);
}
}
}
add a comment |
Since console.time
and performance.now
aren't supported in some major browsers (i.e. IE10), I created a slim utility that utilizes the best available methods. However, it lacks error handling for false usages (calling End()
on a not initialized timer).
Use it and improve it as you want.
Performance: {
Timer: {},
Start: function (name) {
if (console && console.time) {
console.time(name);
} else if (window.performance.now) {
this.Timer[name] = window.performance.now();
} else {
this.Timer[name] = new Date().getTime();
}
},
End: function (name) {
if (console && console.time) {
console.timeEnd(name);
} else {
var result;
if (window.performance.now) {
result = window.performance.now() - this.Timer[name];
} else {
result = new Date().getTime() - this.Timer[name];
}
console.log(name + ": " + result);
}
}
}
add a comment |
Since console.time
and performance.now
aren't supported in some major browsers (i.e. IE10), I created a slim utility that utilizes the best available methods. However, it lacks error handling for false usages (calling End()
on a not initialized timer).
Use it and improve it as you want.
Performance: {
Timer: {},
Start: function (name) {
if (console && console.time) {
console.time(name);
} else if (window.performance.now) {
this.Timer[name] = window.performance.now();
} else {
this.Timer[name] = new Date().getTime();
}
},
End: function (name) {
if (console && console.time) {
console.timeEnd(name);
} else {
var result;
if (window.performance.now) {
result = window.performance.now() - this.Timer[name];
} else {
result = new Date().getTime() - this.Timer[name];
}
console.log(name + ": " + result);
}
}
}
Since console.time
and performance.now
aren't supported in some major browsers (i.e. IE10), I created a slim utility that utilizes the best available methods. However, it lacks error handling for false usages (calling End()
on a not initialized timer).
Use it and improve it as you want.
Performance: {
Timer: {},
Start: function (name) {
if (console && console.time) {
console.time(name);
} else if (window.performance.now) {
this.Timer[name] = window.performance.now();
} else {
this.Timer[name] = new Date().getTime();
}
},
End: function (name) {
if (console && console.time) {
console.timeEnd(name);
} else {
var result;
if (window.performance.now) {
result = window.performance.now() - this.Timer[name];
} else {
result = new Date().getTime() - this.Timer[name];
}
console.log(name + ": " + result);
}
}
}
edited Oct 17 '17 at 7:59
Karthikeyan
892511
892511
answered Sep 18 '14 at 11:14
Mx.Mx.
2,22011630
2,22011630
add a comment |
add a comment |
It may help you.
var t0 = date.now();
doSomething();
var t1 = date.now();
console.log("Call to doSomething took approximate" + (t1 - t0)/1000 + " seconds.")
1
While this code snippet may solve the question, including an explanation really helps to improve the quality of your post. Remember that you are answering the question for readers in the future, and those people might not know the reasons for your code suggestion. Please also try not to crowd your code with explanatory comments, this reduces the readability of both the code and the explanations!
– Filnor
Mar 16 '18 at 7:09
add a comment |
It may help you.
var t0 = date.now();
doSomething();
var t1 = date.now();
console.log("Call to doSomething took approximate" + (t1 - t0)/1000 + " seconds.")
1
While this code snippet may solve the question, including an explanation really helps to improve the quality of your post. Remember that you are answering the question for readers in the future, and those people might not know the reasons for your code suggestion. Please also try not to crowd your code with explanatory comments, this reduces the readability of both the code and the explanations!
– Filnor
Mar 16 '18 at 7:09
add a comment |
It may help you.
var t0 = date.now();
doSomething();
var t1 = date.now();
console.log("Call to doSomething took approximate" + (t1 - t0)/1000 + " seconds.")
It may help you.
var t0 = date.now();
doSomething();
var t1 = date.now();
console.log("Call to doSomething took approximate" + (t1 - t0)/1000 + " seconds.")
answered Mar 16 '18 at 7:00
Wajeeh AslamWajeeh Aslam
412
412
1
While this code snippet may solve the question, including an explanation really helps to improve the quality of your post. Remember that you are answering the question for readers in the future, and those people might not know the reasons for your code suggestion. Please also try not to crowd your code with explanatory comments, this reduces the readability of both the code and the explanations!
– Filnor
Mar 16 '18 at 7:09
add a comment |
1
While this code snippet may solve the question, including an explanation really helps to improve the quality of your post. Remember that you are answering the question for readers in the future, and those people might not know the reasons for your code suggestion. Please also try not to crowd your code with explanatory comments, this reduces the readability of both the code and the explanations!
– Filnor
Mar 16 '18 at 7:09
1
1
While this code snippet may solve the question, including an explanation really helps to improve the quality of your post. Remember that you are answering the question for readers in the future, and those people might not know the reasons for your code suggestion. Please also try not to crowd your code with explanatory comments, this reduces the readability of both the code and the explanations!
– Filnor
Mar 16 '18 at 7:09
While this code snippet may solve the question, including an explanation really helps to improve the quality of your post. Remember that you are answering the question for readers in the future, and those people might not know the reasons for your code suggestion. Please also try not to crowd your code with explanatory comments, this reduces the readability of both the code and the explanations!
– Filnor
Mar 16 '18 at 7:09
add a comment |
Thanks, Achim Koellner, will expand your answer a bit:
var t0 = process.hrtime();
//Start of code to measure
//End of code
var timeInMilliseconds = process.hrtime(t0)[1]/1000000; // dividing by 1000000 gives milliseconds from nanoseconds
Please, note, that you shouldn't do anything apart from what you want to measure (for example, console.log
will also take time to execute and will affect performance tests).
Note, that in order by measure asynchronous functions execution time, you should insert var timeInMilliseconds = process.hrtime(t0)[1]/1000000;
inside the callback. For example,
var t0 = process.hrtime();
someAsyncFunction(function(err, results) {
var timeInMilliseconds = process.hrtime(t0)[1]/1000000;
});
add a comment |
Thanks, Achim Koellner, will expand your answer a bit:
var t0 = process.hrtime();
//Start of code to measure
//End of code
var timeInMilliseconds = process.hrtime(t0)[1]/1000000; // dividing by 1000000 gives milliseconds from nanoseconds
Please, note, that you shouldn't do anything apart from what you want to measure (for example, console.log
will also take time to execute and will affect performance tests).
Note, that in order by measure asynchronous functions execution time, you should insert var timeInMilliseconds = process.hrtime(t0)[1]/1000000;
inside the callback. For example,
var t0 = process.hrtime();
someAsyncFunction(function(err, results) {
var timeInMilliseconds = process.hrtime(t0)[1]/1000000;
});
add a comment |
Thanks, Achim Koellner, will expand your answer a bit:
var t0 = process.hrtime();
//Start of code to measure
//End of code
var timeInMilliseconds = process.hrtime(t0)[1]/1000000; // dividing by 1000000 gives milliseconds from nanoseconds
Please, note, that you shouldn't do anything apart from what you want to measure (for example, console.log
will also take time to execute and will affect performance tests).
Note, that in order by measure asynchronous functions execution time, you should insert var timeInMilliseconds = process.hrtime(t0)[1]/1000000;
inside the callback. For example,
var t0 = process.hrtime();
someAsyncFunction(function(err, results) {
var timeInMilliseconds = process.hrtime(t0)[1]/1000000;
});
Thanks, Achim Koellner, will expand your answer a bit:
var t0 = process.hrtime();
//Start of code to measure
//End of code
var timeInMilliseconds = process.hrtime(t0)[1]/1000000; // dividing by 1000000 gives milliseconds from nanoseconds
Please, note, that you shouldn't do anything apart from what you want to measure (for example, console.log
will also take time to execute and will affect performance tests).
Note, that in order by measure asynchronous functions execution time, you should insert var timeInMilliseconds = process.hrtime(t0)[1]/1000000;
inside the callback. For example,
var t0 = process.hrtime();
someAsyncFunction(function(err, results) {
var timeInMilliseconds = process.hrtime(t0)[1]/1000000;
});
answered Dec 18 '15 at 15:29
Andrew MarinAndrew Marin
465613
465613
add a comment |
add a comment |
A couple months ago I put together my own routine that times a function using Date.now() -- even though at the time the accepted method seemed to be performance.now() --
because the performance object is not yet available (built-in) in the stable Node.js release.
Today I was doing some more research and found another method for timing. Since I also found how to use this in Node.js code, I thought I would share it here.
The following is combined from the examples given by w3c and Node.js:
function functionTimer() {
performance.mark('start')
functionToBeTimed()
performance.mark('end')
performance.measure('Start to End', 'start', 'end')
const measure = performance.getEntriesByName('Start to End')[0]
console.log(measure.duration)
}
NOTE:
If you intend to use the performance
object in a Node.js app, you must include the following require:
const { performance } = require('perf_hooks')
add a comment |
A couple months ago I put together my own routine that times a function using Date.now() -- even though at the time the accepted method seemed to be performance.now() --
because the performance object is not yet available (built-in) in the stable Node.js release.
Today I was doing some more research and found another method for timing. Since I also found how to use this in Node.js code, I thought I would share it here.
The following is combined from the examples given by w3c and Node.js:
function functionTimer() {
performance.mark('start')
functionToBeTimed()
performance.mark('end')
performance.measure('Start to End', 'start', 'end')
const measure = performance.getEntriesByName('Start to End')[0]
console.log(measure.duration)
}
NOTE:
If you intend to use the performance
object in a Node.js app, you must include the following require:
const { performance } = require('perf_hooks')
add a comment |
A couple months ago I put together my own routine that times a function using Date.now() -- even though at the time the accepted method seemed to be performance.now() --
because the performance object is not yet available (built-in) in the stable Node.js release.
Today I was doing some more research and found another method for timing. Since I also found how to use this in Node.js code, I thought I would share it here.
The following is combined from the examples given by w3c and Node.js:
function functionTimer() {
performance.mark('start')
functionToBeTimed()
performance.mark('end')
performance.measure('Start to End', 'start', 'end')
const measure = performance.getEntriesByName('Start to End')[0]
console.log(measure.duration)
}
NOTE:
If you intend to use the performance
object in a Node.js app, you must include the following require:
const { performance } = require('perf_hooks')
A couple months ago I put together my own routine that times a function using Date.now() -- even though at the time the accepted method seemed to be performance.now() --
because the performance object is not yet available (built-in) in the stable Node.js release.
Today I was doing some more research and found another method for timing. Since I also found how to use this in Node.js code, I thought I would share it here.
The following is combined from the examples given by w3c and Node.js:
function functionTimer() {
performance.mark('start')
functionToBeTimed()
performance.mark('end')
performance.measure('Start to End', 'start', 'end')
const measure = performance.getEntriesByName('Start to End')[0]
console.log(measure.duration)
}
NOTE:
If you intend to use the performance
object in a Node.js app, you must include the following require:
const { performance } = require('perf_hooks')
edited Mar 24 '18 at 20:15
answered Mar 18 '18 at 13:45
Jonathan ChasteenJonathan Chasteen
114
114
add a comment |
add a comment |
Here's a decorator for timing functions
let timed = (f) => (...args)=>{
let start = performance.now();
let ret = f(...args);
console.log(`function ${f.name} took ${(performance.now()-start).toFixed(3)}ms`)
return ret;
}
Usage:
let test = ()=>{/*does something*/}
test = timed(test) // turns the function into a timed function in one line
test() // run your code as normal, logs 'function test took 1001.900ms'
If you're using async functions you can make timed
async and add an await
before f(...args), and that should work for those. It gets more complicated if you want one decorator to handle both sync and async functions.
add a comment |
Here's a decorator for timing functions
let timed = (f) => (...args)=>{
let start = performance.now();
let ret = f(...args);
console.log(`function ${f.name} took ${(performance.now()-start).toFixed(3)}ms`)
return ret;
}
Usage:
let test = ()=>{/*does something*/}
test = timed(test) // turns the function into a timed function in one line
test() // run your code as normal, logs 'function test took 1001.900ms'
If you're using async functions you can make timed
async and add an await
before f(...args), and that should work for those. It gets more complicated if you want one decorator to handle both sync and async functions.
add a comment |
Here's a decorator for timing functions
let timed = (f) => (...args)=>{
let start = performance.now();
let ret = f(...args);
console.log(`function ${f.name} took ${(performance.now()-start).toFixed(3)}ms`)
return ret;
}
Usage:
let test = ()=>{/*does something*/}
test = timed(test) // turns the function into a timed function in one line
test() // run your code as normal, logs 'function test took 1001.900ms'
If you're using async functions you can make timed
async and add an await
before f(...args), and that should work for those. It gets more complicated if you want one decorator to handle both sync and async functions.
Here's a decorator for timing functions
let timed = (f) => (...args)=>{
let start = performance.now();
let ret = f(...args);
console.log(`function ${f.name} took ${(performance.now()-start).toFixed(3)}ms`)
return ret;
}
Usage:
let test = ()=>{/*does something*/}
test = timed(test) // turns the function into a timed function in one line
test() // run your code as normal, logs 'function test took 1001.900ms'
If you're using async functions you can make timed
async and add an await
before f(...args), and that should work for those. It gets more complicated if you want one decorator to handle both sync and async functions.
answered Sep 12 '18 at 1:41
aljgomaljgom
1,2361012
1,2361012
add a comment |
add a comment |
export default class Singleton {
static myInstance: Singleton = null;
_timers: any = {};
/**
* @returns {Singleton}
*/
static getInstance() {
if (Singleton.myInstance == null) {
Singleton.myInstance = new Singleton();
}
return this.myInstance;
}
initTime(label: string) {
this._timers[label] = Date.now();
return this._timers[label];
}
endTime(label: string) {
const endTime = Date.now();
if (this._timers[label]) {
const delta = endTime - this._timers[label];
const finalTime = `${label}: ${delta}ms`;
delete this._timers[label];
return finalTime;
} else {
return null;
}
}
}
InitTime related to string
.
return Singleton.getInstance().initTime(label); // Returns the time init
return Singleton.getInstance().endTime(label); // Returns the total time between init and end
add a comment |
export default class Singleton {
static myInstance: Singleton = null;
_timers: any = {};
/**
* @returns {Singleton}
*/
static getInstance() {
if (Singleton.myInstance == null) {
Singleton.myInstance = new Singleton();
}
return this.myInstance;
}
initTime(label: string) {
this._timers[label] = Date.now();
return this._timers[label];
}
endTime(label: string) {
const endTime = Date.now();
if (this._timers[label]) {
const delta = endTime - this._timers[label];
const finalTime = `${label}: ${delta}ms`;
delete this._timers[label];
return finalTime;
} else {
return null;
}
}
}
InitTime related to string
.
return Singleton.getInstance().initTime(label); // Returns the time init
return Singleton.getInstance().endTime(label); // Returns the total time between init and end
add a comment |
export default class Singleton {
static myInstance: Singleton = null;
_timers: any = {};
/**
* @returns {Singleton}
*/
static getInstance() {
if (Singleton.myInstance == null) {
Singleton.myInstance = new Singleton();
}
return this.myInstance;
}
initTime(label: string) {
this._timers[label] = Date.now();
return this._timers[label];
}
endTime(label: string) {
const endTime = Date.now();
if (this._timers[label]) {
const delta = endTime - this._timers[label];
const finalTime = `${label}: ${delta}ms`;
delete this._timers[label];
return finalTime;
} else {
return null;
}
}
}
InitTime related to string
.
return Singleton.getInstance().initTime(label); // Returns the time init
return Singleton.getInstance().endTime(label); // Returns the total time between init and end
export default class Singleton {
static myInstance: Singleton = null;
_timers: any = {};
/**
* @returns {Singleton}
*/
static getInstance() {
if (Singleton.myInstance == null) {
Singleton.myInstance = new Singleton();
}
return this.myInstance;
}
initTime(label: string) {
this._timers[label] = Date.now();
return this._timers[label];
}
endTime(label: string) {
const endTime = Date.now();
if (this._timers[label]) {
const delta = endTime - this._timers[label];
const finalTime = `${label}: ${delta}ms`;
delete this._timers[label];
return finalTime;
} else {
return null;
}
}
}
InitTime related to string
.
return Singleton.getInstance().initTime(label); // Returns the time init
return Singleton.getInstance().endTime(label); // Returns the total time between init and end
answered Aug 14 '18 at 13:38
jose920405jose920405
5,76623050
5,76623050
add a comment |
add a comment |
If you want to measure the time between multiple things that aren't nested you could use this:
function timer(lap){
if(lap) console.log(`${lap} in: ${(performance.now()-timer.prev).toFixed(3)}ms`);
timer.prev = performance.now();
}
Similar to console.time(), but easier usage if you don't need to keep track of previous timers.
If you like the blue color from console.time(), you can use this line instead
console.log(`${lap} in: %c${(performance.now()-timer.prev).toFixed(3)}ms`, 'color:blue');
// Usage:
timer() // set the start
// do something
timer('built') // logs 'built in: 591.815ms'
// do something
timer('copied') // logs 'copied in: 0.065ms'
// do something
timer('compared') // logs 'compared in: 36.41ms'
add a comment |
If you want to measure the time between multiple things that aren't nested you could use this:
function timer(lap){
if(lap) console.log(`${lap} in: ${(performance.now()-timer.prev).toFixed(3)}ms`);
timer.prev = performance.now();
}
Similar to console.time(), but easier usage if you don't need to keep track of previous timers.
If you like the blue color from console.time(), you can use this line instead
console.log(`${lap} in: %c${(performance.now()-timer.prev).toFixed(3)}ms`, 'color:blue');
// Usage:
timer() // set the start
// do something
timer('built') // logs 'built in: 591.815ms'
// do something
timer('copied') // logs 'copied in: 0.065ms'
// do something
timer('compared') // logs 'compared in: 36.41ms'
add a comment |
If you want to measure the time between multiple things that aren't nested you could use this:
function timer(lap){
if(lap) console.log(`${lap} in: ${(performance.now()-timer.prev).toFixed(3)}ms`);
timer.prev = performance.now();
}
Similar to console.time(), but easier usage if you don't need to keep track of previous timers.
If you like the blue color from console.time(), you can use this line instead
console.log(`${lap} in: %c${(performance.now()-timer.prev).toFixed(3)}ms`, 'color:blue');
// Usage:
timer() // set the start
// do something
timer('built') // logs 'built in: 591.815ms'
// do something
timer('copied') // logs 'copied in: 0.065ms'
// do something
timer('compared') // logs 'compared in: 36.41ms'
If you want to measure the time between multiple things that aren't nested you could use this:
function timer(lap){
if(lap) console.log(`${lap} in: ${(performance.now()-timer.prev).toFixed(3)}ms`);
timer.prev = performance.now();
}
Similar to console.time(), but easier usage if you don't need to keep track of previous timers.
If you like the blue color from console.time(), you can use this line instead
console.log(`${lap} in: %c${(performance.now()-timer.prev).toFixed(3)}ms`, 'color:blue');
// Usage:
timer() // set the start
// do something
timer('built') // logs 'built in: 591.815ms'
// do something
timer('copied') // logs 'copied in: 0.065ms'
// do something
timer('compared') // logs 'compared in: 36.41ms'
edited Sep 11 '18 at 22:52
answered Apr 3 '17 at 11:11
aljgomaljgom
1,2361012
1,2361012
add a comment |
add a comment |
In my case, I perfer to use @ grammar suger and compile it with babel.
The problem of this method is that function has to be inside object.
Sample JS Code
function timer() {
return (target, propertyKey, descriptor) => {
const start = Date.now();
let oldFunc = descriptor.value;
descriptor.value = async function (){
var result = await oldFunc.apply(this, arguments);
console.log(Date.now() - start);
return result;
}
}
}
// Util function
function delay(timeout) {
return new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(() => {
resolve();
}, timeout));
}
class Test {
@timer()
async test(timout) {
await delay(timout)
console.log("delay 1");
await delay(timout)
console.log("delay 2");
}
}
const t = new Test();
t.test(1000)
t.test(100)
.babelrc (for babel 6)
{
"plugins": [
"transform-decorators-legacy"
]
}
add a comment |
In my case, I perfer to use @ grammar suger and compile it with babel.
The problem of this method is that function has to be inside object.
Sample JS Code
function timer() {
return (target, propertyKey, descriptor) => {
const start = Date.now();
let oldFunc = descriptor.value;
descriptor.value = async function (){
var result = await oldFunc.apply(this, arguments);
console.log(Date.now() - start);
return result;
}
}
}
// Util function
function delay(timeout) {
return new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(() => {
resolve();
}, timeout));
}
class Test {
@timer()
async test(timout) {
await delay(timout)
console.log("delay 1");
await delay(timout)
console.log("delay 2");
}
}
const t = new Test();
t.test(1000)
t.test(100)
.babelrc (for babel 6)
{
"plugins": [
"transform-decorators-legacy"
]
}
add a comment |
In my case, I perfer to use @ grammar suger and compile it with babel.
The problem of this method is that function has to be inside object.
Sample JS Code
function timer() {
return (target, propertyKey, descriptor) => {
const start = Date.now();
let oldFunc = descriptor.value;
descriptor.value = async function (){
var result = await oldFunc.apply(this, arguments);
console.log(Date.now() - start);
return result;
}
}
}
// Util function
function delay(timeout) {
return new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(() => {
resolve();
}, timeout));
}
class Test {
@timer()
async test(timout) {
await delay(timout)
console.log("delay 1");
await delay(timout)
console.log("delay 2");
}
}
const t = new Test();
t.test(1000)
t.test(100)
.babelrc (for babel 6)
{
"plugins": [
"transform-decorators-legacy"
]
}
In my case, I perfer to use @ grammar suger and compile it with babel.
The problem of this method is that function has to be inside object.
Sample JS Code
function timer() {
return (target, propertyKey, descriptor) => {
const start = Date.now();
let oldFunc = descriptor.value;
descriptor.value = async function (){
var result = await oldFunc.apply(this, arguments);
console.log(Date.now() - start);
return result;
}
}
}
// Util function
function delay(timeout) {
return new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(() => {
resolve();
}, timeout));
}
class Test {
@timer()
async test(timout) {
await delay(timout)
console.log("delay 1");
await delay(timout)
console.log("delay 2");
}
}
const t = new Test();
t.test(1000)
t.test(100)
.babelrc (for babel 6)
{
"plugins": [
"transform-decorators-legacy"
]
}
edited Sep 29 '18 at 20:34
answered Sep 29 '18 at 19:45
Yu HuangYu Huang
752814
752814
add a comment |
add a comment |
It is possible to use only one variable:
var timer = -performance.now();
// Do something
timer += performance.now();
console.log("Time: " + (timer/1000).toFixed(5) + " sec.")
timer/1000
- to convert milliseconds to seconds
.toFixed(5)
- to trim extra digits
add a comment |
It is possible to use only one variable:
var timer = -performance.now();
// Do something
timer += performance.now();
console.log("Time: " + (timer/1000).toFixed(5) + " sec.")
timer/1000
- to convert milliseconds to seconds
.toFixed(5)
- to trim extra digits
add a comment |
It is possible to use only one variable:
var timer = -performance.now();
// Do something
timer += performance.now();
console.log("Time: " + (timer/1000).toFixed(5) + " sec.")
timer/1000
- to convert milliseconds to seconds
.toFixed(5)
- to trim extra digits
It is possible to use only one variable:
var timer = -performance.now();
// Do something
timer += performance.now();
console.log("Time: " + (timer/1000).toFixed(5) + " sec.")
timer/1000
- to convert milliseconds to seconds
.toFixed(5)
- to trim extra digits
answered Feb 1 at 7:13
user1032559user1032559
918914
918914
add a comment |
add a comment |
Stopwatch with cumulative cycles
Works with server and client (Node or DOM), uses the Performance
API.
Good when you have many small cycles e.g. in a function called 1000 times that processes 1000 data objects but you want to see how each operation in this function adds up to the total.
So this one uses a module global (singleton) timer. Same as a class singleton pattern, just a bit simpler to use, but you need to put this in a separate e.g. stopwatch.js
file.
const perf = typeof performance !== "undefined" ? performance : require('perf_hooks').performance;
const DIGITS = 2;
let _timers = {};
const _log = (label, delta?) => {
if (_timers[label]) {
console.log(`${label}: ` + (delta ? `${delta.toFixed(DIGITS)} ms last, ` : '') +
`${_timers[label].total.toFixed(DIGITS)} ms total, ${_timers[label].cycles} cycles`);
}
};
export const Stopwatch = {
start(label) {
const now = perf.now();
if (_timers[label]) {
if (!_timers[label].started) {
_timers[label].started = now;
}
} else {
_timers[label] = {
started: now,
total: 0,
cycles: 0
};
}
},
/** Returns total elapsed milliseconds, or null if stopwatch doesn't exist. */
stop(label, log = false) {
const now = perf.now();
if (_timers[label]) {
let delta;
if(_timers[label].started) {
delta = now - _timers[label].started;
_timers[label].started = null;
_timers[label].total += delta;
_timers[label].cycles++;
}
log && _log(label, delta);
return _timers[label].total;
} else {
return null;
}
},
/** Logs total time */
log: _log,
delete(label) {
delete _timers[label];
}
};
add a comment |
Stopwatch with cumulative cycles
Works with server and client (Node or DOM), uses the Performance
API.
Good when you have many small cycles e.g. in a function called 1000 times that processes 1000 data objects but you want to see how each operation in this function adds up to the total.
So this one uses a module global (singleton) timer. Same as a class singleton pattern, just a bit simpler to use, but you need to put this in a separate e.g. stopwatch.js
file.
const perf = typeof performance !== "undefined" ? performance : require('perf_hooks').performance;
const DIGITS = 2;
let _timers = {};
const _log = (label, delta?) => {
if (_timers[label]) {
console.log(`${label}: ` + (delta ? `${delta.toFixed(DIGITS)} ms last, ` : '') +
`${_timers[label].total.toFixed(DIGITS)} ms total, ${_timers[label].cycles} cycles`);
}
};
export const Stopwatch = {
start(label) {
const now = perf.now();
if (_timers[label]) {
if (!_timers[label].started) {
_timers[label].started = now;
}
} else {
_timers[label] = {
started: now,
total: 0,
cycles: 0
};
}
},
/** Returns total elapsed milliseconds, or null if stopwatch doesn't exist. */
stop(label, log = false) {
const now = perf.now();
if (_timers[label]) {
let delta;
if(_timers[label].started) {
delta = now - _timers[label].started;
_timers[label].started = null;
_timers[label].total += delta;
_timers[label].cycles++;
}
log && _log(label, delta);
return _timers[label].total;
} else {
return null;
}
},
/** Logs total time */
log: _log,
delete(label) {
delete _timers[label];
}
};
add a comment |
Stopwatch with cumulative cycles
Works with server and client (Node or DOM), uses the Performance
API.
Good when you have many small cycles e.g. in a function called 1000 times that processes 1000 data objects but you want to see how each operation in this function adds up to the total.
So this one uses a module global (singleton) timer. Same as a class singleton pattern, just a bit simpler to use, but you need to put this in a separate e.g. stopwatch.js
file.
const perf = typeof performance !== "undefined" ? performance : require('perf_hooks').performance;
const DIGITS = 2;
let _timers = {};
const _log = (label, delta?) => {
if (_timers[label]) {
console.log(`${label}: ` + (delta ? `${delta.toFixed(DIGITS)} ms last, ` : '') +
`${_timers[label].total.toFixed(DIGITS)} ms total, ${_timers[label].cycles} cycles`);
}
};
export const Stopwatch = {
start(label) {
const now = perf.now();
if (_timers[label]) {
if (!_timers[label].started) {
_timers[label].started = now;
}
} else {
_timers[label] = {
started: now,
total: 0,
cycles: 0
};
}
},
/** Returns total elapsed milliseconds, or null if stopwatch doesn't exist. */
stop(label, log = false) {
const now = perf.now();
if (_timers[label]) {
let delta;
if(_timers[label].started) {
delta = now - _timers[label].started;
_timers[label].started = null;
_timers[label].total += delta;
_timers[label].cycles++;
}
log && _log(label, delta);
return _timers[label].total;
} else {
return null;
}
},
/** Logs total time */
log: _log,
delete(label) {
delete _timers[label];
}
};
Stopwatch with cumulative cycles
Works with server and client (Node or DOM), uses the Performance
API.
Good when you have many small cycles e.g. in a function called 1000 times that processes 1000 data objects but you want to see how each operation in this function adds up to the total.
So this one uses a module global (singleton) timer. Same as a class singleton pattern, just a bit simpler to use, but you need to put this in a separate e.g. stopwatch.js
file.
const perf = typeof performance !== "undefined" ? performance : require('perf_hooks').performance;
const DIGITS = 2;
let _timers = {};
const _log = (label, delta?) => {
if (_timers[label]) {
console.log(`${label}: ` + (delta ? `${delta.toFixed(DIGITS)} ms last, ` : '') +
`${_timers[label].total.toFixed(DIGITS)} ms total, ${_timers[label].cycles} cycles`);
}
};
export const Stopwatch = {
start(label) {
const now = perf.now();
if (_timers[label]) {
if (!_timers[label].started) {
_timers[label].started = now;
}
} else {
_timers[label] = {
started: now,
total: 0,
cycles: 0
};
}
},
/** Returns total elapsed milliseconds, or null if stopwatch doesn't exist. */
stop(label, log = false) {
const now = perf.now();
if (_timers[label]) {
let delta;
if(_timers[label].started) {
delta = now - _timers[label].started;
_timers[label].started = null;
_timers[label].total += delta;
_timers[label].cycles++;
}
log && _log(label, delta);
return _timers[label].total;
} else {
return null;
}
},
/** Logs total time */
log: _log,
delete(label) {
delete _timers[label];
}
};
answered Jan 28 at 23:17
gombosggombosg
912
912
add a comment |
add a comment |
As previously stated check for and use built in timer. But if you want or need to write your own here is my two cents:
//=-=|Source|=-=//
/**
* JavaScript Timer Object
*
* var now=timer['elapsed']();
* timer['stop']();
* timer['start']();
* timer['reset']();
*
* @expose
* @method timer
* @return {number}
*/
timer=function(){
var a=Date.now();
b=0;
return{
/** @expose */
elapsed:function(){return b=Date.now()-a},
start:function(){return a=Date.now()},
stop:function(){return Date.now()},
reset:function(){return a=0}
}
}();
//=-=|Google Advanced Optimized|=-=//
timer=function(){var a=Date.now();b=0;return{a:function(){return b=Date.now()-a},start:function(){return a=Date.now()},stop:function(){return Date.now()},reset:function(){return a=0}}}();
Compilation was a success!
- Original Size: 219 bytes gzipped (405 bytes uncompressed)
- Compiled Size: 109 bytes gzipped (187 bytes uncompressed)
- Saved 50.23% off the gzipped size (53.83% without gzip
add a comment |
As previously stated check for and use built in timer. But if you want or need to write your own here is my two cents:
//=-=|Source|=-=//
/**
* JavaScript Timer Object
*
* var now=timer['elapsed']();
* timer['stop']();
* timer['start']();
* timer['reset']();
*
* @expose
* @method timer
* @return {number}
*/
timer=function(){
var a=Date.now();
b=0;
return{
/** @expose */
elapsed:function(){return b=Date.now()-a},
start:function(){return a=Date.now()},
stop:function(){return Date.now()},
reset:function(){return a=0}
}
}();
//=-=|Google Advanced Optimized|=-=//
timer=function(){var a=Date.now();b=0;return{a:function(){return b=Date.now()-a},start:function(){return a=Date.now()},stop:function(){return Date.now()},reset:function(){return a=0}}}();
Compilation was a success!
- Original Size: 219 bytes gzipped (405 bytes uncompressed)
- Compiled Size: 109 bytes gzipped (187 bytes uncompressed)
- Saved 50.23% off the gzipped size (53.83% without gzip
add a comment |
As previously stated check for and use built in timer. But if you want or need to write your own here is my two cents:
//=-=|Source|=-=//
/**
* JavaScript Timer Object
*
* var now=timer['elapsed']();
* timer['stop']();
* timer['start']();
* timer['reset']();
*
* @expose
* @method timer
* @return {number}
*/
timer=function(){
var a=Date.now();
b=0;
return{
/** @expose */
elapsed:function(){return b=Date.now()-a},
start:function(){return a=Date.now()},
stop:function(){return Date.now()},
reset:function(){return a=0}
}
}();
//=-=|Google Advanced Optimized|=-=//
timer=function(){var a=Date.now();b=0;return{a:function(){return b=Date.now()-a},start:function(){return a=Date.now()},stop:function(){return Date.now()},reset:function(){return a=0}}}();
Compilation was a success!
- Original Size: 219 bytes gzipped (405 bytes uncompressed)
- Compiled Size: 109 bytes gzipped (187 bytes uncompressed)
- Saved 50.23% off the gzipped size (53.83% without gzip
As previously stated check for and use built in timer. But if you want or need to write your own here is my two cents:
//=-=|Source|=-=//
/**
* JavaScript Timer Object
*
* var now=timer['elapsed']();
* timer['stop']();
* timer['start']();
* timer['reset']();
*
* @expose
* @method timer
* @return {number}
*/
timer=function(){
var a=Date.now();
b=0;
return{
/** @expose */
elapsed:function(){return b=Date.now()-a},
start:function(){return a=Date.now()},
stop:function(){return Date.now()},
reset:function(){return a=0}
}
}();
//=-=|Google Advanced Optimized|=-=//
timer=function(){var a=Date.now();b=0;return{a:function(){return b=Date.now()-a},start:function(){return a=Date.now()},stop:function(){return Date.now()},reset:function(){return a=0}}}();
Compilation was a success!
- Original Size: 219 bytes gzipped (405 bytes uncompressed)
- Compiled Size: 109 bytes gzipped (187 bytes uncompressed)
- Saved 50.23% off the gzipped size (53.83% without gzip
answered Mar 16 '14 at 21:21
NlaakALDNlaakALD
1321212
1321212
add a comment |
add a comment |
The accepted answer is wrong !
Since JavaScript is asynchronous, the values of the variable end of the accepted answer would be wrong.
var start = new Date().getTime();
for (i = 0; i < 50000; ++i) {
// JavaScript is not waiting until the for is finished !!
}
var end = new Date().getTime();
var time = end - start;
alert('Execution time: ' + time);
The execution of the for may be very fast so you can not see that the result is wrong. You can test it with a code doing some request :
var start = new Date().getTime();
for (i = 0; i < 50000; ++i) {
$.ajax({
url: 'www.oneOfYourWebsites.com',
success: function(){
console.log("success");
}
});
}
var end = new Date().getTime();
var time = end - start;
alert('Execution time: ' + time);
So the alert will prompt very quickly but in the console you'll see that the ajax requests are continuing.
Here is how you should do it : https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Performance.now
7
It's not because of the for loop. A for loop will wait until the last loop until it will go on down your sourcecode. AJAX calls are async. And there are also other functions that run async. But a for loop is not executet async.
– Scriptlabs
Mar 12 '15 at 19:21
add a comment |
The accepted answer is wrong !
Since JavaScript is asynchronous, the values of the variable end of the accepted answer would be wrong.
var start = new Date().getTime();
for (i = 0; i < 50000; ++i) {
// JavaScript is not waiting until the for is finished !!
}
var end = new Date().getTime();
var time = end - start;
alert('Execution time: ' + time);
The execution of the for may be very fast so you can not see that the result is wrong. You can test it with a code doing some request :
var start = new Date().getTime();
for (i = 0; i < 50000; ++i) {
$.ajax({
url: 'www.oneOfYourWebsites.com',
success: function(){
console.log("success");
}
});
}
var end = new Date().getTime();
var time = end - start;
alert('Execution time: ' + time);
So the alert will prompt very quickly but in the console you'll see that the ajax requests are continuing.
Here is how you should do it : https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Performance.now
7
It's not because of the for loop. A for loop will wait until the last loop until it will go on down your sourcecode. AJAX calls are async. And there are also other functions that run async. But a for loop is not executet async.
– Scriptlabs
Mar 12 '15 at 19:21
add a comment |
The accepted answer is wrong !
Since JavaScript is asynchronous, the values of the variable end of the accepted answer would be wrong.
var start = new Date().getTime();
for (i = 0; i < 50000; ++i) {
// JavaScript is not waiting until the for is finished !!
}
var end = new Date().getTime();
var time = end - start;
alert('Execution time: ' + time);
The execution of the for may be very fast so you can not see that the result is wrong. You can test it with a code doing some request :
var start = new Date().getTime();
for (i = 0; i < 50000; ++i) {
$.ajax({
url: 'www.oneOfYourWebsites.com',
success: function(){
console.log("success");
}
});
}
var end = new Date().getTime();
var time = end - start;
alert('Execution time: ' + time);
So the alert will prompt very quickly but in the console you'll see that the ajax requests are continuing.
Here is how you should do it : https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Performance.now
The accepted answer is wrong !
Since JavaScript is asynchronous, the values of the variable end of the accepted answer would be wrong.
var start = new Date().getTime();
for (i = 0; i < 50000; ++i) {
// JavaScript is not waiting until the for is finished !!
}
var end = new Date().getTime();
var time = end - start;
alert('Execution time: ' + time);
The execution of the for may be very fast so you can not see that the result is wrong. You can test it with a code doing some request :
var start = new Date().getTime();
for (i = 0; i < 50000; ++i) {
$.ajax({
url: 'www.oneOfYourWebsites.com',
success: function(){
console.log("success");
}
});
}
var end = new Date().getTime();
var time = end - start;
alert('Execution time: ' + time);
So the alert will prompt very quickly but in the console you'll see that the ajax requests are continuing.
Here is how you should do it : https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Performance.now
answered Feb 3 '15 at 16:02
Mirza SelimovicMirza Selimovic
1,0571018
1,0571018
7
It's not because of the for loop. A for loop will wait until the last loop until it will go on down your sourcecode. AJAX calls are async. And there are also other functions that run async. But a for loop is not executet async.
– Scriptlabs
Mar 12 '15 at 19:21
add a comment |
7
It's not because of the for loop. A for loop will wait until the last loop until it will go on down your sourcecode. AJAX calls are async. And there are also other functions that run async. But a for loop is not executet async.
– Scriptlabs
Mar 12 '15 at 19:21
7
7
It's not because of the for loop. A for loop will wait until the last loop until it will go on down your sourcecode. AJAX calls are async. And there are also other functions that run async. But a for loop is not executet async.
– Scriptlabs
Mar 12 '15 at 19:21
It's not because of the for loop. A for loop will wait until the last loop until it will go on down your sourcecode. AJAX calls are async. And there are also other functions that run async. But a for loop is not executet async.
– Scriptlabs
Mar 12 '15 at 19:21
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f313893%2fhow-to-measure-time-taken-by-a-function-to-execute%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
Often a statement on what you are trying to accomplish with the execution time can prove to be far more useful than answering the question alone. These days, using Profiling in Firebug or Chrome Dev tools is often a far better way of finding the code that is sucking up your cpu juice.
– oligofren
Mar 6 '13 at 10:04
here's how you can do it the classic
Date
way, which gives youms
and is sufficient for the majority of cases I think albertech.blogspot.com/2015/07/… ... but yeah you should really look atPerformance.now
– jar
Oct 6 '16 at 19:53
performance.now()
does not work in Node.new Date().getTime()
will work in Node.– Ryan Walker
Sep 11 '18 at 22:50