Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
async function w/microtask vs sync function
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
sync vs async
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var sync = i => i+1; var a_sync = async i => {await Promise.resolve(); return i+1;}
Tests:
sync
for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) sync(i);
async
for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) a_sync(i);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
sync
async
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):
I'd be happy to help you understand the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: synchronous and asynchronous functions in JavaScript. The `Script Preparation Code` section defines two functions: * `sync`: a synchronous function that takes an input `i` and returns `i + 1`. * `a_sync`: an asynchronous function that uses the `async/await` syntax to achieve similar behavior as the synchronous function. The function `a_sync` waits for a microtask to complete using `Promise.resolve()` before returning the result. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares two options: 1. **Synchronous functions**: Using traditional synchronous function calls, where the execution of the code is blocking. 2. **Asynchronous functions with microtasks**: Using asynchronous functions with the `async/await` syntax and leveraging microtasks to perform I/O operations. **Pros and Cons** **Synchronous Functions:** Pros: * Easy to understand and write for simple tasks * Can be faster for small, inlined functions Cons: * Blocking execution, which can lead to performance issues and freezing the UI * May not scale well for complex, large-scale codebases **Asynchronous Functions with Microtasks:** Pros: * Non-blocking execution, which allows for better responsiveness and scalability * Can be used effectively for I/O-bound operations Cons: * Requires careful management of microtasks and timeouts to avoid performance issues * May require additional setup and handling for error cases In general, asynchronous functions with microtasks are preferred for I/O-bound operations or when dealing with complex codebases. However, synchronous functions can still be suitable for small, simple tasks where the trade-off between ease of use and performance is acceptable. **Library: None** There is no specific JavaScript library mentioned in the benchmark definition. The `async/await` syntax is a part of ECMAScript 2017 (ES6) standard, which is built into most modern JavaScript engines. **Special JS Feature or Syntax: None** This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the `async/await` construct. However, it's worth noting that other benchmarks might explore more advanced topics like: * Web Workers * Promises * Generators * Async/Await with Closures **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring similar benchmarks, here are some alternatives: 1. **MathBenchmark**: A benchmark suite from Mozilla that compares the performance of various mathematical operations in JavaScript. 2. **BenchMarkU**: A benchmarking tool that allows users to create and run custom JavaScript benchmarks on their own servers. 3. **jsPerf**: A web-based benchmarking tool that allows users to compare the performance of different JavaScript implementations. Keep in mind that each benchmark suite has its own strengths, weaknesses, and focus areas, so it's essential to choose the one that best suits your needs.
Related benchmarks:
sync vs promise
async function w/microtask vs sync function (with a little work)
Promise vs async vs callbacks
callbacks vs promises vs async/awaits
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?