Benchmark: async vs sync - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

async
async function asyncTest() { return 1 + 1; }
sync
function asyncTest() { return 1 + 1; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
async
sync

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 hours ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 135 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
async	205357600.0 Ops/sec
sync	172375200.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this benchmark.

The provided JSON represents two test cases: `async` and `sync`. These test cases are comparing the performance of asynchronous and synchronous code execution in JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we're testing two approaches:

1. **Asynchronous Code Execution**: The `asyncTest` function uses the `async` keyword, which allows it to return a promise. In JavaScript, when a function is marked as `async`, it can use the `await` keyword to pause its execution until a promise is resolved or rejected.
2. **Synchronous Code Execution**: The second `asyncTest` function doesn't use the `async` keyword and returns a value directly.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

*   **Asynchronous Code Execution (async/await)**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Better suited for I/O-bound operations, such as making API requests or reading/writing files.
        *   Allows for easier error handling and more efficient use of system resources.
        *   Simplifies code readability by breaking down long sequences of operations into smaller, manageable chunks.
    *   Cons:
        *   Can lead to memory leaks if not used carefully, especially when dealing with callbacks or promises.
        *   May cause additional overhead due to the need for context switching between tasks.
*   **Synchronous Code Execution**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Typically faster execution times since there's no additional overhead from waiting on I/O operations.
        *   Can be easier to reason about and understand, especially for simple computations.
    *   Cons:
        *   May lead to blocking or unresponsive UI components if used in critical paths.
        *   Less suitable for I/O-bound operations due to the blocking nature of synchronous code.

**Library and Syntax**

There is no specific library mentioned in this benchmark. The `async/await` syntax is a part of the JavaScript language, which allows developers to write asynchronous code that's easier to read and maintain.

If test users special JS features or syntax like Generators, Promises, Closures, or async/await, these would not be considered here as there are no specific mention on them in this benchmark definition.

Related benchmarks:

async vs sync (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: async vs sync

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

async

sync

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):