Benchmark: async vs asyncPromiseAll

Script Preparation code:

async function basicAsync() {
  const fetch1 = await fetch(www.google.com);
  const fetch2 = await fetch(www.google.it);
  const fetch3 = await fetch(www.google.de);
};

async function promiseAllAsync() {
  const [fetch1, fetch2, fetch3] = await Promise.all([
    fetch(www.google.com),
    fetch(www.google.it),
    fetch(www.google.de)
  ]);
};

Tests:

Basic
basicAsync()
Promise
promiseAllAsync()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Basic
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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of two JavaScript functions: `basicAsync` and `promiseAllAsync`. Both functions make three fetch requests to different Google websites (`www.google.com`, `www.google.it`, and `www.google.de`). However, they use different approaches to handle these concurrent requests:

1. **`basicAsync` function**: This function uses the `await` keyword to wait for each individual fetch request to complete before moving on to the next one. The `fetch` API is used directly in the callback.
2. **`promiseAllAsync` function**: This function uses `Promise.all()` to wait for all three fetch requests to complete concurrently. It returns an array of the results, where each result is a promise that resolves with the response from the corresponding fetch request.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **`basicAsync`**: Uses direct `fetch` API calls and waits for each individual request to complete.
2. **`promiseAllAsync`**: Uses `Promise.all()` to wait for all three requests to complete concurrently.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`basicAsync`**:
	* Pros: May be more efficient in terms of memory usage, as it avoids creating multiple promises.
	* Cons: Can lead to slower overall performance due to the need to wait for each individual request to complete.
2. **`promiseAllAsync`**:
	* Pros: Can potentially achieve better performance by handling concurrent requests, but may require more memory due to the creation of multiple promises.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient in terms of memory usage.

**Library Used**

In the provided JSON data, no specific library is mentioned. However, it's worth noting that `Promise.all()` is a built-in JavaScript API that allows you to wait for all promises in an array to resolve or reject.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses the `async` and `await` keywords, which are introduced in ECMAScript 2017 (ES7). These keywords allow developers to write asynchronous code that is easier to read and maintain. The use of `Promise.all()` also relies on the concept of promises, which is a fundamental aspect of JavaScript's asynchronous programming model.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

1. **`async/await` with multiple parallel fetches**: Instead of using `Promise.all()`, you could use `Promise.all()` with the `parallel` option to execute the fetch requests concurrently.
2. **Web Workers**: You could use Web Workers to run each fetch request in a separate thread, allowing for true concurrent execution.
3. **Custom approach**: Depending on your specific requirements, you might want to consider implementing a custom approach using WebSockets or other technologies that allow for low-latency and efficient communication between the main thread and worker threads.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require more complex code and setup, but they can provide better performance and scalability in certain scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

async vs asyncPromiseAll (version: 0)

A common LinkedIn post debunked by Andrea Marchetti

Comparing performance of: Basic vs Promise

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Basic

Promise

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):