Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Bad await use
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
await vs non-await
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
await
let count = 0; function foo() { count += 1; } async function test() { for (let i = 0; i < 1; i += 1) { await foo(); } } test();
non-await
let count = 0; function foo() { count += 1; } function test() { for (let i = 0; i < 1; i += 1) { foo(); } } test();
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
await
non-await
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
**What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents two benchmark test cases that measure the performance of two different approaches to handling asynchronous code in JavaScript. **Options compared:** Two options are being compared: 1. **Await**: This approach uses the `await` keyword to pause the execution of an async function until a promise is resolved or rejected. 2. **Non-Await**: This approach does not use the `await` keyword and instead uses callbacks or other mechanisms to handle asynchronous operations. **Pros and Cons:** * **Await**: + Pros: - Easier to read and write code, as it allows for synchronous-style coding with async functions. - Reduces errors caused by callback hell. + Cons: - May introduce additional overhead due to the creation of promises and context switching. * **Non-Await**: + Pros: - Can be faster in some cases, as it avoids the overhead of promise creation and context switching. + Cons: - More difficult to read and write code, as it requires more manual management of callbacks and promises. **Library and purpose:** There is no library being tested explicitly. However, the use of `await` implies that the code is using modern JavaScript features and is likely utilizing the `Promise` API or a similar framework to manage asynchronous operations. **Special JS feature or syntax:** The benchmark test cases demonstrate the use of **async/await**, which is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2017. This feature allows for synchronous-style coding with async functions, making it easier to read and write code. The `await` keyword pauses the execution of an async function until a promise is resolved or rejected. **Other alternatives:** If you prefer not to use `await`, other alternatives include: * Using callbacks with `then()` or `done()` * Utilizing promises directly (e.g., `.then()`, `.catch()`) * Employing cooperative scheduling mechanisms, such as the `setImmediate()` function Keep in mind that each approach has its own trade-offs and can affect performance, readability, and maintainability of the code. **Benchmark preparation code:** The provided benchmark preparation code is minimal, but it sets up two functions: 1. `foo()`: A simple function that increments a counter variable. 2. `test()`: An async function that uses a for loop to call `foo()` repeatedly. Both functions are then called in a sequence to demonstrate the performance difference between using `await` and not using it.
Related benchmarks:
then vs. async-await
Awaiting sync vs async 2
Promise vs Async Await
then vs. async-await simple
callbacks vs promises vs async/awaits
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?