Benchmark: Parallel execution 2

Script Preparation code:

const asyncBuilder = (t) => async () => setTimeout(() => t, t)

const a10s = asyncBuilder(100);

Tests:

Promise all
(async () => await Promise.all([a10s(), a10s()]))()
Array
(async () => [await a10s(), await a10s()])()
Seq
(async () => { await a10s(); await a10s(); })()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Promise all
Array
Seq

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, library usage, special JavaScript features, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the execution performance of three different approaches for executing asynchronous tasks: `Promise.all`, `[await a10s(), await a10s()]`, and `{ await a10s(); await a10s(); }`.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines an async function `asyncBuilder` that takes a time value `t` as input, wraps it in a setTimeout function to introduce a delay, and returns the wrapped function. The `a10s` variable is created by calling this function with `t=100`. This allows for creating multiple asynchronous tasks with varying execution times.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of three test cases:

1. **Promise all**: Executes two asynchronous tasks (`a10s`) using `Promise.all`.
2. **Array**: Executes two asynchronous tasks (`a10s`) and returns them as an array.
3. **Seq**: Executes two asynchronous tasks (`a10s`) sequentially.

**Comparison of Approaches**

The three approaches differ in how they handle the execution of multiple asynchronous tasks:

* **Promise all**: Exects both tasks to complete before proceeding. This approach is suitable for cases where the order of task completion doesn't matter.
* **Array**: Returns both tasks immediately, without waiting for them to complete. This approach can lead to resource leaks or other issues if not handled correctly.
* **Seq**: Executes tasks sequentially, one after the other. This approach ensures that each task completes before moving on to the next one.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Promise all**:
	+ Pros: Efficient use of resources, handles parallel execution efficiently.
	+ Cons: May not be suitable for cases where order matters or tasks have different completion times.
* **Array**:
	+ Pros: Simple to implement, can handle multiple tasks in parallel.
	+ Cons: May lead to resource leaks, incorrect task ordering, or other issues if not handled correctly.
* **Seq**:
	+ Pros: Ensures correct task ordering and execution, suitable for cases where order matters.
	+ Cons: May be less efficient than Promise all for certain use cases.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in the provided benchmark. However, `Promise` is a built-in JavaScript object that provides support for promises.

**Special JavaScript Features**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When running benchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* **Context switching**: The cost of switching between tasks or threads can impact performance.
* **Resource allocation**: Efficient resource allocation and management are crucial for achieving optimal performance.
* **Browser-specific behavior**: Browser-specific behaviors, such as caching or rendering quirks, can affect benchmark results.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for benchmarking JavaScript microbenchmarks include:

* **V8 Benchmark Suite**: A collection of benchmarks designed to test the performance of the V8 JavaScript engine.
* **JSPerf**: A benchmarking tool specifically designed for JavaScript performance testing.
* **BenchmarkDotNet**: An open-source benchmarking framework for .NET, also compatible with JavaScript.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.4324.150 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Promise all	58307.1 Ops/sec
Array	64125.0 Ops/sec
Seq	67217.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Parallel execution 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Promise all vs Array vs Seq

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Promise all

Array

Seq

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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