Benchmark: async vs sync 337-(839

Tests:

async
async function asyncTest() { return Math.random(); }
sync
function syncTest() { return Math.random(); }

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: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 132 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
async	222150144.0 Ops/sec
sync	204996592.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net, where we can analyze and compare different approaches to JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark defines two test cases: `async` and `sync`. The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the performance difference between asynchronous and synchronous code execution in JavaScript. In other words, it's testing how fast each approach can execute a simple function that generates a random number.

**Options compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Synchronous (Sync)**: This approach executes the code sequentially, where the next line of code is executed only after the previous one has completed.
2. **Asynchronous (Async)**: This approach uses callbacks or promises to execute the code concurrently, allowing other tasks to be performed while waiting for the previous task to complete.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

**Synchronous (Sync)**

Pros:

* Easy to understand and implement
* Good for simple tasks that don't require concurrent execution
* Can be more predictable in terms of execution order

Cons:

* Can lead to blocking calls, where the entire application is paused waiting for a task to complete
* May not take advantage of multi-core processors or multiple CPU cores

**Asynchronous (Async)**

Pros:

* Allows for concurrent execution, which can improve overall performance and responsiveness
* Enables non-blocking I/O operations, making it suitable for real-time applications
* Can reduce the risk of blocking calls

Cons:

* Can be more complex to implement and debug
* May introduce additional overhead due to context switching or callback management

**Other considerations**

* In JavaScript, asynchronous code execution is often achieved using callbacks (functions passed as arguments to other functions) or promises (objects that represent a value that may not be available yet).
* In modern JavaScript, it's common to use async/await syntax, which provides a more readable and synchronous-like experience for asynchronous code.

**Library usage**

The benchmark doesn't explicitly mention any libraries being used. However, the `async` test case uses the `async` keyword and the `return` statement with parentheses, indicating that it's using JavaScript's built-in async/await syntax.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. The code is straightforward and uses basic JavaScript syntax.

**Other alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to synchronous and asynchronous execution include:

* **Event-driven programming**: Instead of executing tasks sequentially, the program responds to events or user interactions, allowing for concurrent execution.
* **Parallel processing**: Divide the workload into smaller, independent tasks that can be executed simultaneously on multiple CPU cores or devices.
* **Coroutines**: A programming technique where a function yields control to another function without blocking, enabling efficient use of resources.

In summary, MeasureThat.net's benchmark provides a simple and straightforward way to compare the performance difference between synchronous and asynchronous code execution in JavaScript. By using async/await syntax, we can take advantage of modern JavaScript's concurrency features while maintaining readability and ease of implementation.

Related benchmarks:

async vs sync 337-(839 (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>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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