Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
async vs sync 337-(839
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
async vs sync
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
async
async function asyncTest() { return Math.random(); }
sync
function syncTest() { return Math.random(); }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=588230" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
async
222.2M/s
sync
205.0M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
async
222,150,144 Ops/sec
sync
204,996,592 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
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
JS native vs js native loop vs Ramda vs. Lodash
Math.pow(x,2) vs Math.sqrt(x)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?