Benchmark: await delay vs setTimeout

Script Preparation code:

const delayA = time => new Promise(res=>setTimeout(res,time));
const delayT = (func, wait) => {
    var args = slice.call(arguments, 2);
    return setTimeout(function(){
      return func.apply(null, args);
    }, wait);
  };
var test = function(){
  return;
}

Tests:

delayA
(async function(){ await delayA(0); test(); return; })();
delayT
(async function(){ await delayT(test,0); return; })();
setTimeout
(async function(){ setTimeout(test,0); })();

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 14 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 9 runs

setTimeout

645K/s

delayA

193K/s

delayT

132K/s

Fastest: setTimeout (4.9x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ setTimeout: 644,624 ops/sec
• delayA: 193,116 ops/sec
• delayT: 131,533 ops/sec

Firefox 5 runs

setTimeout

682K/s

delayA

270K/s

delayT

218K/s

Fastest: setTimeout (3.1x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ setTimeout: 681,818 ops/sec
• delayA: 270,069 ops/sec
• delayT: 218,085 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
delayA
delayT
setTimeout

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; rv:133.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/133.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 133 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

setTimeout

712K/s

delayA

294K/s

delayT

226K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ setTimeout	711,640 Ops/sec
delayA	293,966 Ops/sec
delayT	225,715 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing three approaches: `await delayA`, `await delayT`, and `setTimeout`. The script preparation code defines two functions:

* `delayA`: returns a promise that resolves after a specified time, using `setTimeout` internally.
* `delayT`: wraps the provided function (`test`) in a new function, which is then executed after a specified wait time, also using `setTimeout`.

**Options being compared**

The three options are:

1. **await delayA**: uses a promise to delay execution, with the promise resolving after the specified time.
2. **await delayT**: wraps the provided function (`test`) in a new function that is executed after the specified wait time, using a promise internally.
3. **setTimeout**: directly sets a timeout for the execution of the `test` function.

**Pros and Cons**

* **await delayA**:
	+ Pros: simple and readable implementation, uses promises to handle asynchronous operations.
	+ Cons: may lead to unnecessary context switching or object allocation during the promise resolution phase.
* **await delayT**:
	+ Pros: provides a more explicit way to wrap functions in promises, can be useful for chaining delays or other async operations.
	+ Cons: adds extra complexity compared to `await delayA`, and may lead to unnecessary overhead due to the wrapper function.
* **setTimeout**:
	+ Pros: widely supported and well-established method for setting timers, often used in production code.
	+ Cons: can be less readable and maintainable than other approaches, especially for complex timing requirements.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's worth noting that `slice.call` is used to create an array of arguments from the `arguments` object, which is a common pattern in JavaScript.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special features or syntax used in this benchmark beyond what's standard for JavaScript (async/await, promises). However, it's worth noting that the use of `var args = slice.call(arguments, 2);` might be considered outdated or less readable than using `...args` or other spread operator methods.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to these approaches could include:

* **useCallback**: a React hook for memoizing functions, which can also be used to delay function execution.
* **setInterval**: another widely supported method for setting timers, although its usage might be less explicit than `setTimeout`.
* **Promise.race**: a built-in promise constructor that resolves as soon as any of the promises in an array resolve, which could be used to implement similar timing behavior.

Overall, this benchmark provides a clear and concise way to compare the performance of different approaches to delay function execution in JavaScript.

await delay vs setTimeout (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `delayA vs delayT vs setTimeout`

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

delayA

delayT

setTimeout

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 14 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 9 runs

Firefox 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

await delay vs setTimeout (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: delayA vs delayT vs setTimeout

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

delayA

delayT

setTimeout

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 14 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 9 runs

Firefox 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `delayA vs delayT vs setTimeout`