Benchmark: async for vs promise.all large 2

Script Preparation code:

async function asyncFor(){
    for (const x of [...Array(30).keys()]) {
        await new Promise(resolve => resolve(x > 0));
    }
}

async function asyncPromiseAll() {
    await Promise.all([...Array(30).keys()].map(x =>
        new Promise(resolve => resolve(x > 0))
    ));
}

Tests:

asyncFor
asyncFor()
asyncPromiseAll
asyncPromiseAll()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
asyncFor
asyncPromiseAll

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.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test case on the MeasureThat.net website. The test compares the performance of two asynchronous programming approaches: `async for` and `Promise.all`.

**What is being tested?**

In the first test case, "asyncFor", the code uses an `async for` loop to iterate over an array of 30 numbers. Inside the loop, a promise is created that resolves when the current number is greater than 0. The loop waits for each promise to resolve using the `await` keyword.

In the second test case, "asyncPromiseAll", the code uses `Promise.all` to execute an array of promises in parallel. Each promise creates a new promise that resolves when the current number is greater than 0.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Async for**: This approach uses an `async for` loop to iterate over the array, waiting for each promise to resolve individually.
2. **Promise.all**: This approach executes all promises in parallel using `Promise.all`, which waits for all promises to resolve before continuing.

**Pros and cons**

**Async for:**

Pros:

* Can be easier to read and understand for developers familiar with traditional loops
* Allows for more control over the iteration process

Cons:

* May incur additional overhead due to the loop and promise creation
* Can lead to performance bottlenecks if not optimized properly

**Promise.all:**

Pros:

* Executes promises in parallel, potentially reducing overall execution time
* Simplifies code by reducing the need for explicit loop logic

Cons:

* Can be less intuitive for developers unfamiliar with `Promise.all`
* May incur additional overhead due to the promise creation and resolution process

**Other considerations**

* The use of `await` keywords allows both approaches to be asynchronous, which can improve performance in I/O-bound operations.
* The `async for` loop can be more efficient when dealing with large datasets or complex iteration logic.

**Library and special JS features**

Neither approach explicitly uses a library. However, it's worth noting that the use of `Promise.all` relies on the implementation of `Promise.resolve()` and `Promise.reject()`, which are part of the JavaScript standard library.

**Test users special JS feature**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in these test cases. The code is straightforward and utilizes basic JavaScript concepts.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for asynchronous programming include:

* **Callbacks**: A function that is called after another function has completed.
* **Generators**: A special type of function that allows for iterative execution.
* **Closures**: A function that has access to its own scope, which can be useful for creating iterators or handling events.

Keep in mind that each alternative has its own trade-offs and use cases. The choice of approach depends on the specific requirements of the project and the developer's personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

async for vs promise.all large 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: asyncFor vs asyncPromiseAll

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

asyncFor

asyncPromiseAll

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):