Benchmark: Async Test - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function wait(ms) {
    return new Promise(res => setTimeout(() => { res(ms); }, ms));
}

Tests:

Async Wait 50ms [Async/Deferred]
await wait(50); deferred.resolve();
Async Wait 500ms [Async/Deferred]
await wait(500); deferred.resolve();
Async Wait 100ms [Async/Deferred]
await wait(100); deferred.resolve();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Async Wait 50ms
Async Wait 500ms
Async Wait 100ms

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 10 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark provided tests the performance of asynchronous operations in JavaScript using promises. This benchmark specifically evaluates how long it takes to execute multiple asynchronous wait functions with various durations (50ms, 100ms, and 500ms). Each individual test case calls a `wait` function, which returns a promise that resolves after a specified number of milliseconds.

### Key Components of the Benchmark

1. **Benchmark Preparation Code**:
   - The `wait(ms)` function is defined to return a promise that resolves after a delay specified by the `ms` parameter. It achieves this using `setTimeout` within a promise. This pattern allows the test cases to simulate an asynchronous operation.

2. **Test Cases**:
   - The benchmark includes three test cases, each of which employs the `wait` function with varying delays:
     - **Async Wait 50ms**: Measures performance for a brief 50ms wait.
     - **Async Wait 100ms**: Measures performance for a 100ms wait.
     - **Async Wait 500ms**: Measures performance for a longer 500ms wait.

### Pros and Cons of the Approaches

1. **Asynchronous Execution**:
   - **Pros**:
     - Letting the JavaScript event loop manage asynchronous code prevents blocking the main thread, ensuring that the application remains responsive.
     - Promises make it easier to handle asynchronous code in a cleaner, more readable manner compared to traditional callback patterns.
   - **Cons**:
     - Overhead of promise resolution can introduce some latency, especially with longer waits, as seen here.
     - The performance impact of this approach can be affected by factors such as browser optimizations and system performance.

2. **Different Wait Periods**:
   - This test comparatively measures how different durations impact execution speed.
   - It highlights the diminishing returns of the number of possible executions per second as the wait time increases.

### Test Results Overview

The benchmark results show the number of executions per second for each test case:

- For **Async Wait 50ms**, the performance was around **17.44 executions per second**, indicating that this short wait resolves fairly quickly.
- For **Async Wait 100ms**, the performance decreased to about **9.5 executions per second**, reflecting the increased wait time's impact.
- For **Async Wait 500ms**, the performance dropped significantly to about **1.98 executions per second**, demonstrating how longer waits deter the event loop's capacity to process additional asynchronous tasks.

### Alternatives to the Current Approach

1. **Using `async/await` Syntax**:
   - This benchmark implicitly uses `async/await`, which is a syntactic sugar built on top of promises. It makes asynchronous code appear more synchronous and can contribute to easier debugging. However, it may add minimal overhead compared to using plain promises directly.

2. **Using Callback Functions**:
   - Instead of promises, traditional callbacks could be utilized for handling asynchronous code. This would result in more complicated nesting (callback hell) and less readability, making promises a preferred choice.

3. **Web Workers**:
   - For long-running tasks that would otherwise block the main thread, Web Workers allow for parallel execution in a separate thread. While adding complexity, they can significantly enhance performance for CPU-bound tasks, allowing the main UI thread to remain responsive.

4. **Other Libraries**:
   - Libraries like `RxJS` or `Bluebird` provide advanced functionalities with reactive programming or extended promise capabilities, respectively. They can help manage more complex asynchronous workflows but may introduce additional dependency overhead.

In summary, this benchmark provides a focused look at how different asynchronous wait times affect execution speed in JavaScript. By measuring the impacts of these execution delays through promises, it offers insights valuable to engineers looking to optimize their asynchronous code.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/130.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Async Wait 50ms	15.9 Ops/sec
Async Wait 500ms	2.0 Ops/sec
Async Wait 100ms	9.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Async Test (version: 2)

Testing async test support that will come in MeasureThat.net v 1.6.0

Comparing performance of: Async Wait 50ms vs Async Wait 500ms vs Async Wait 100ms

Created: 11 days ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Async Wait 50ms [Async/Deferred]

Async Wait 500ms [Async/Deferred]

Async Wait 100ms [Async/Deferred]

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 10 days ago):