Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
test await
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
with await vs without await
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
async function withAwait() { for (let i = 0; i < 100; i ++) { await i; } } function withoutAwait() { for (let i = 0; i < 100; i ++) { i; } }
Tests:
with await
(async function () { await withAwait() })()
without await
(function () { withoutAwait() })()
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
with await
without 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'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark measures the performance difference between two JavaScript approaches: using `await` in an asynchronous function versus not using it. **Benchmark Definition JSON** The benchmark definition includes three sections: 1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code defines two functions: * `withAwait()`: an asynchronous function that loops 100 times, using `await i;` inside the loop. * `withoutAwait()`: a synchronous function that loops 100 times, using `i;` (which is just the value of `i`, without any await). 2. **Html Preparation Code**: This section is empty, indicating that no HTML code is required for this benchmark. **Individual Test Cases** There are two test cases: 1. **with await**: * The benchmark definition runs the asynchronous `withAwait()` function immediately. * The script preparation code includes the `async` keyword, which is not needed in this case because there's no explicit return statement or async/await chain outside of the function. 2. **without await**: * The benchmark definition runs the synchronous `withoutAwait()` function immediately. **Comparison** The two test cases compare the performance of running an asynchronous function with `await` versus a synchronous function without `await`. The main difference is that the `withAwait()` function uses `await` to pause execution, while the `withoutAwait()` function executes synchronously and doesn't pause. **Pros and Cons** * **Using `await`**: + Pros: - Can improve performance by allowing other tasks to run while waiting for I/O operations. - Can simplify code by avoiding explicit callbacks or promises. + Cons: - May introduce additional overhead due to the need to check for awaiting conditions. * **Not using `await`**: + Pros: - Eliminates the need to explicitly handle awaiting conditions, simplifying code. + Cons: - Can lead to poor performance if not done carefully (e.g., blocking operations). **Other Considerations** * The benchmark uses Firefox 118 as the test browser. Other browsers may exhibit different results due to differences in implementation. * The device platform is set to Desktop, which may impact results. Mobile devices or other platforms might behave differently. **Alternative Approaches** * **Using Promises**: Instead of `await`, you could use promises to handle asynchronous operations. This would require more code and would not eliminate the need for explicit awaiting conditions. * **Callbacks**: You could also use callbacks instead of promises, but this would require even more code and might be less efficient. In summary, the benchmark measures the performance difference between using `await` in an asynchronous function versus running a synchronous function without `await`. While both approaches have pros and cons, `await` can simplify code while potentially introducing additional overhead.
Related benchmarks:
async for vs promise all (setTimeout version)
needless async impact
async for vs promise.all2
async for vs promise.all /w delay
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?