Benchmark: Promise vs Async

Tests:

Async
function retPromise() { return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) { resolve({hi: 3}) }) } async function go() { const b = await rePromise() return b } async function main() { const t = await go() return t } main()
Promisey
function retPromise() { return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) { resolve({hi: 3}) }) } async function go() { return rePromise() } async function main() { const t = await go() return t } main()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Async
Promisey

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches:

**Approach 1: Using `async/await` with Promises**

In this approach, the `go()` function awaits the result of the `retPromise()` function using the `await` keyword. The `main()` function then calls `go()` and returns its result.

```javascript
async function go() {
  const b = await retPromise();
  return b;
}
```

**Approach 2: Using Promises without `async/await`**

In this approach, the `retPromise()` function still returns a Promise, but in the `go()` function, it's called directly without using the `await` keyword. Instead, the `.then()` method is used to handle the resolved value.

```javascript
function go() {
  return retPromise().then(b => b);
}
```

**Comparison**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of these two approaches on a specific test case that creates and resolves a Promise with a simple object `{hi: 3}`.

**Pros and Cons**

**Approach 1 (Async/Await)**

Pros:

* More readable code, as it eliminates the need for `.then()` chaining
* Better error handling, as it allows for better error propagation

Cons:

* Requires ES6+ compatibility (specifically, support for `async` and `await`)
* May have slower execution due to the overhead of creating a new stack frame

**Approach 2 (Promises without Async/Await)**

Pros:

* More compatible with older browsers that don't support ES6+
* Can potentially be faster due to reduced function call overhead

Cons:

* Less readable code, as it requires more manual error handling
* May lead to errors if not handled properly

**Library:**

In this benchmark, the library used is the built-in `Promise` class in JavaScript. The `Promise` class provides a way to handle asynchronous operations by returning an object that represents a value that may not be available yet.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

The test case uses the `async/await` syntax, which is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2017 (ES7). It allows developers to write asynchronous code that's easier to read and maintain. The `.then()` method and Promise chaining are also used, but these are standard JavaScript features.

**Other Considerations:**

The benchmark measures the number of executions per second for each approach on a specific test case. This provides an idea of which approach is faster in this particular scenario. However, it's essential to note that benchmarking results can vary depending on the specific use case and environment.

Alternatives:

* Other approaches could involve using callbacks instead of Promises or async/await.
* Some libraries like `bluebird` provide alternative Promise implementations with additional features.
* Micro-optimizations like using `Promise.race()` or `Promise.all()` might also be considered.

Related benchmarks:

Promise vs Async (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Async vs Promisey

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Async

Promisey

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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