Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Sync vs Promise benchmark test (ver 1)
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Sync vs Promise
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
function foo() { const array = []; const count = 1000000; for (let i = 0; i < count; i++) { array.push(Math.random() * count); } return array.map(num => num / 2); }
Tests:
Sync
const run = () => { const result = foo(); console.log(result); }; run();
Promise
const run = async () => { const promise = new Promise(resolve => { resolve(foo()); }); const result = await promise; console.log(result); } run();
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Sync
Promise
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?** MeasureThat.net is testing the performance difference between synchronous and asynchronous approaches in JavaScript. The benchmark defines two test cases: 1. **Sync**: This test case uses a synchronous function call to execute the `foo()` function, which generates an array of random numbers and then maps over it. 2. **Promise**: This test case uses an asynchronous approach with a Promise to execute the `foo()` function. The Promise is created by wrapping the `foo()` function in a callback, and the result is awaited using the `await` keyword. **Options compared** The two options being compared are: 1. Synchronous execution (Sync) 2. Asynchronous execution with Promises (Promise) **Pros and Cons of each approach:** * **Synchronous execution (Sync)**: + Pros: - Easy to understand and implement - No need for additional libraries or setup + Cons: - Can block the main thread, causing performance issues - May not be suitable for real-time applications * **Asynchronous execution with Promises (Promise)**: + Pros: - Allows for non-blocking code execution - Can improve responsiveness and scalability in GUI applications + Cons: - Requires additional setup and understanding of Promise syntax - May introduce complexity and overhead **Library usage** In this benchmark, the `Promise` library is used to create a Promise that wraps the execution of the `foo()` function. The `resolve()` method is called to signal the completion of the Promise, and the result is awaited using the `await` keyword. No other libraries are mentioned in the Benchmark Definition or test cases. **Special JS features** This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features beyond the use of Promises. **Other alternatives** If asynchronous execution with Promises is not an option, other alternatives to synchronous execution could include: 1. **Callbacks**: Using callbacks instead of Promises can be a viable alternative for simple asynchronous operations. 2. **Async/Await with setTimeout**: Using `setTimeout()` to introduce a delay between synchronous operations can provide a similar non-blocking experience without using Promises. 3. **Worker Threads**: In modern browsers, worker threads can be used to offload computationally expensive tasks from the main thread, providing a way to improve responsiveness while still avoiding synchronous blocking. Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different trade-offs and requirements compared to using Promises.
Related benchmarks:
sync vs promise
async vs sync 337-(839
Sync vs Promise benchmark test
Sync vs Promise benchmark test (ver 2)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?