Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
check async performance
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
A vs B
Created:
one year ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
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>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
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):
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:
Parallel execution 2
async for vs promise.all vs for await
Error handling in async await vs old way
Promise vs Async Await(2)
sync for vs promise.all vs async for
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?