Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
async vs asyncPromiseAll - LinkedIn
(version: 0)
A common LinkedIn post debunked by Andrea Marchetti
Comparing performance of:
Basic await vs PromiseAll await
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
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 await
basicAsync()
PromiseAll await
promiseAllAsync()
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Basic await
PromiseAll await
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 provided benchmark and its results. **Benchmark Overview** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two approaches for making concurrent requests using `async/await`: 1. **Basic await**: This approach uses individual `fetch` calls within separate `async` functions, which are awaited one by one. 2. **PromiseAll await**: This approach uses the `Promise.all()` API to concurrently fetch multiple resources. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches in making concurrent requests using `async/await`. The goal is to determine which approach performs better and more efficiently. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **Basic await**: * Pros: Simple and straightforward implementation, easy to understand and maintain. * Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of creating multiple promises and awaiting them individually. 2. **PromiseAll await**: * Pros: Can take advantage of modern JavaScript engines' ability to execute multiple tasks concurrently, potentially resulting in better performance. * Cons: May have a steeper learning curve due to the use of `Promise.all()` and array destructuring. **Library and Special Features** There are no external libraries mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's worth noting that some modern JavaScript engines, such as V8 (used by Google Chrome), have built-in support for asynchronous iteration using `async/await` syntax. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** The benchmark uses the following special feature: * **Async functions**: The `async` keyword is used to define functions that can contain promises. This allows the use of `await` expressions within those functions. * **Await expressions**: The `await` keyword is used to pause the execution of a function until a promise is resolved. **Other Alternatives** If you're looking for alternative approaches or want to explore other options, here are a few: 1. **Using Web Workers**: You can use Web Workers to make concurrent requests without using async/await syntax. 2. **Using `fetch` with `Promise.all()`**: Similar to the PromiseAll await approach, but without using async functions and await expressions. 3. **Using third-party libraries**: There are several libraries available that provide efficient concurrency mechanisms for making HTTP requests, such as Axios or fetch-all. Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the Basic await and PromiseAll await approaches used in this benchmark.
Related benchmarks:
promise vs callback
async vs asyncPromiseAll
Promise vs async vs callbacks
callbacks vs promises vs async/awaits
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?