Benchmark: setTimeout vs wrapped setTimeout

Script Preparation code:

var i = 0;
var setTimeout2 = function(callback, timeout) {
  if (!document.hidden) return window.setTimeout(callback, timeout);
}

Tests:

setTimeout
setTimeout(function(){i++},0);
setTimeout2
setTimeout2(function(){i++},0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
setTimeout
setTimeout2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 18_3_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) CriOS/134.0.6998.33 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile iOS 134 on iOS 18.3.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
setTimeout	2923072.5 Ops/sec
setTimeout2	2457723.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and discussed.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two approaches to implementing `setTimeout`:

1. The standard `setTimeout` function from the browser's JavaScript engine (e.g., V8 in Chrome).
2. A custom implementation of `setTimeout`, denoted as `setTimeout2`.

**Options compared:**

* **Document hidden check**: Both implementations check if the document is hidden before invoking the callback, but the custom implementation (`setTimeout2`) also checks for other conditions to avoid potential issues with certain browser versions or extensions.
* **Window setTimeout**: The standard implementation uses the native `window.setTimeout` function, while the custom implementation wraps this function.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Standard implementation (setTimeout)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Native implementation, likely optimized for performance.
		- Supports a wide range of browsers and versions.
	+ Cons:
		- May have issues with certain browser extensions or plugins that manipulate the `hidden` property.
		- Less control over the underlying behavior.
* **Custom implementation (setTimeout2)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Provides more control over the behavior, allowing for customization of edge cases.
		- Can mitigate potential issues with browser extensions or plugins.
	+ Cons:
		- May be less optimized for performance compared to the native implementation.
		- Requires additional code and maintenance.

**Library:**

There is no explicitly mentioned library used in this benchmark. However, it's likely that the custom implementation (`setTimeout2`) uses a utility function to wrap the native `window.setTimeout` function.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, generators, or decorators. The code is straightforward and focuses on the comparison between two implementations of `setTimeout`.

**Other alternatives:**

If you want to test alternative approaches to implementing `setTimeout`, you could consider:

* Using a different library or framework that provides its own implementation of `setTimeout`.
* Implementing `setTimeout` from scratch using low-level JavaScript APIs.
* Testing the performance of different scheduling algorithms, such as Coalesced Scheduling or Fixed-Time Queuing.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark code and may introduce additional complexities.

Related benchmarks:

setTimeout vs wrapped setTimeout (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: setTimeout vs setTimeout2

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

setTimeout

setTimeout2

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):