Benchmark: Check await or just await

Script Preparation code:


async function checkAwait(value) {
  const result = (typeof value.then === 'function') ? await value : value;
  console.log(result);
}

async function checkAwaitTest() {
  checkAwait(1);
  checkAwait(Promise.resolve(1));
  checkAwait(1);
  checkAwait(Promise.resolve(1));
  checkAwait(1);
  checkAwait(Promise.resolve(1));
  checkAwait(1);
  checkAwait(Promise.resolve(1));
  checkAwait(1);
  checkAwait(Promise.resolve(1));
}

async function justAwait(value) {
  const result = await value;
  console.log(result);
}

async function justAwaitTest() {
  justAwait(1);
  justAwait(Promise.resolve(1));
  justAwait(1);
  justAwait(Promise.resolve(1));
  justAwait(1);
  justAwait(Promise.resolve(1));
  justAwait(1);
  justAwait(Promise.resolve(1));
  justAwait(1);
  justAwait(Promise.resolve(1));
}

Tests:

Check await
checkAwaitTest();
Just await
justAwaitTest();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Check await
Just await

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'd be happy to explain what's tested in the provided benchmark and compare different approaches.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark tests two different ways of handling asynchronous code: `checkAwait` and `justAwait`. Both methods are used to execute an asynchronous function that returns a promise. The main difference between the two is how they handle the promise resolution.

**Check Await**

In the `checkAwait` approach, if the input value has a `.then()` method (i.e., it's already a promise), the code uses `await` to wait for its resolution and then logs the result. If the input value doesn't have a `.then()` method (i.e., it's not a promise), the code simply assigns the value to the `result` variable without waiting for its resolution, and logs the result.

**Just Await**

In contrast, the `justAwait` approach uses `await` unconditionally on the input value, regardless of whether it's a promise or not. This means that if the input value is not a promise, the code will wait for its resolution before logging the result.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

1. **Check Await**: This approach only uses `await` when the input value is already a promise.
2. **Just Await**: This approach always uses `await`, regardless of whether the input value is a promise or not.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

* **Check Await**
	+ Pros:
		- More efficient when dealing with promises, as it only uses `await` on already-promise values.
		- Less unnecessary waiting when dealing with non-promise values.
	+ Cons:
		- May lead to more complex code when handling non-promise inputs.
* **Just Await**
	+ Pros:
		- Simplifies the code, as there's no need to check if the input is a promise.
	+ Cons:
		- Can lead to unnecessary waiting on non-promise inputs.

**Library and Special JS Features**

Neither of these approaches uses any libraries or special JavaScript features beyond the standard `Promise` API. However, it's worth noting that in modern JavaScript, using `await` with non-promise values is generally considered an anti-pattern, as it can lead to unexpected behavior and performance issues.

**Other Considerations**

When writing asynchronous code, it's essential to consider the following:

* Always handle errors and edge cases when working with promises.
* Use `try-catch` blocks or other error handling mechanisms to ensure robustness.
* Be mindful of performance implications when using `await`, as it can lead to additional overhead.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider the following:

1. **Use a library like `p-queue`**: This library provides a more efficient way of handling promises and non-promise values by utilizing a queue-based approach.
2. **Implement your own promise handling mechanism**: Depending on your specific use case, you may be able to implement a custom promise handling mechanism that optimizes performance.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches are not necessarily better or worse than the original `checkAwait` and `justAwait` methods; they simply provide different trade-offs between efficiency, simplicity, and robustness.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/116.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 116 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Check await	45975.6 Ops/sec
Just await	71853.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Check await or just await (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Check await vs Just await

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Check await

Just await

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):