Benchmark: check async performance

Script Preparation code:

function a(b,c){
  return b + c; 
}

async function a2(b,c){
   await a(b,c); 
}

function a3(b,c){
   a(b,c); 
}

Tests:

A
a2(1,2);
B
a3(1,2)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
A
B

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:138.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/138.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 138 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
A	1057050.4 Ops/sec
B	774251392.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is created using JSON data that defines two JavaScript functions: `a` and its asynchronous version `a2`. The third function `a3` simply calls the synchronous `a` function. This setup allows us to compare the performance of calling a synchronous function versus an asynchronous one, with the asynchronous call wrapped in `await`.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines these two functions:

```javascript
function a(b,c){
  return b + c;
}

async function a2(b,c){
  await a(b,c);
}
```

Here, `a` is a simple synchronous function that takes two arguments and returns their sum. The `a2` function is the asynchronous version of `a`, which also adds two numbers but uses `await` to wait for the result of calling the synchronous `a` function.

**Html Preparation Code**

There's no HTML preparation code provided, so we won't discuss it further.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. `A`: Calls `a2(1,2)`, which is an asynchronous call to the synchronous `a` function.
2. `B`: Calls `a3(1,2)`, which simply calls the synchronous `a` function directly.

**Comparison**

In this benchmark, we're comparing two approaches:

* **Aynchronous vs Synchronous**: We're measuring the performance difference between calling an asynchronous function (with `await`) versus a synchronous function.
* **Wrapped Function Call**: For both test cases, the asynchronous call is wrapped in `await`, which ensures that the asynchronous operation completes before returning. This wrapping can affect performance due to the additional overhead of managing the async context.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Aynchronous vs Synchronous**:
	+ Pros: Asynchronous calls can improve responsiveness by allowing other tasks to run while waiting for a long-running operation to complete.
	+ Cons: Adding an `await` call introduces extra overhead, which may reduce performance in some cases. For very short operations or those with high CPU usage, synchronous calls might be faster.
* **Wrapped Function Call**:
	+ Pros: Wrapping the function call ensures that the asynchronous operation completes before returning, maintaining a clean and predictable execution order.
	+ Cons: Introduces additional overhead due to managing the async context.

**Library**

In this benchmark, there's no explicitly mentioned library. However, it's worth noting that `async/await` syntax is part of ECMAScript 2017 (ES7) standard, which means most modern JavaScript engines support it natively.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are a few notable aspects:

* **Async/Await**: This syntax allows writing asynchronous code that looks and feels synchronous. The `async/await` pattern is more readable and maintainable than traditional callbacks.
* **Await Expression**: The `await` expression pauses the execution of the async function until the promise associated with it is resolved or rejected.

**Other Alternatives**

For measuring performance differences, other alternatives could include:

* Using a profiling tool like Chrome DevTools or Node.js Inspector to analyze execution times and CPU usage.
* Implementing your own timer-based benchmark using JavaScript's built-in `Date` object or a dedicated timing library.
* Comparing the performance of different JavaScript engines or versions.

Keep in mind that each alternative has its trade-offs, and the choice ultimately depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

Related benchmarks:

check async performance (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: A vs B

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

A

B

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):