Benchmark: reuse of audio elements in ratechangeTick with await

Tests:

reusing elements
(async function(){ var reusables = []; function nextTick(cb){ var resolve; var promise = new Promise(function (resolveImpl) { resolve = resolveImpl; }); var audio = reusables.length ? reusables.shift() : document.createElement("audio"); audio.onratechange = function(){ audio.onratechange = undefined; //todo not really necessary audio.playbackRate = 1; reusables.push(audio); resolve(cb()); } audio.playbackRate = 2; promise.cancel = function(){ audio.onratechange = undefined; resolve(false); return cb; } return promise; } var result = await nextTick(function(){}); })();
nonreusables
(async function(){ function nextTick(cb){ var resolve; var promise = new Promise(function (resolveImpl) { resolve = resolveImpl; }); var audio = document.createElement("audio"); audio.onratechange = function(){ resolve(cb()); } audio.playbackRate = 2; promise.cancel = function(){ audio.onratechange = undefined; resolve(false); return cb; } return promise; } var result = await nextTick(function(){}); })();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
reusing elements
nonreusables

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:77.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/77.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 77 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
reusing elements	39028.4 Ops/sec
nonreusables	41912.7 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and individual test cases.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark named "reuse of audio elements in ratechangeTick with await". There is no specific script preparation code or HTML preparation code, indicating that these are built-in functions or variables available for testing. The purpose of this benchmark appears to be measuring the performance difference between reusing and non-reusing `audio` elements.

**Individual Test Cases:**

### "reusing elements"

This test case uses a custom function `nextTick()` that creates an `audio` element, sets its playback rate, and returns a promise. The promise is cancelled when the `onratechange` event is triggered. The test then awaits this promise using the `await` keyword.

**Library:**
None

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
The use of async/await syntax and promise manipulation (`nextTick()` function) requires modern JavaScript features (ECMAScript 2017 or later).

The purpose of this test case is to measure the performance impact of reusing `audio` elements. The benchmark likely checks if reusing an `audio` element is faster than creating a new one.

**Pros and Cons:**

Pros:

* This approach allows for more fine-grained control over the creation and reuse of resources.
* It can help identify performance bottlenecks in specific scenarios.

Cons:

* Creating and manipulating promises and async/await contexts can add complexity to the benchmarking code.
* The use of a custom `nextTick()` function may introduce additional overhead not present in real-world code.

### "nonreusables"

This test case is similar to the previous one, but without reusing the `audio` element. Instead, it creates a new `audio` element each time the `onratechange` event is triggered.

**Library:**
None

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:** None (only basic JavaScript)

The purpose of this test case is to measure the performance impact of not reusing `audio` elements.

**Pros and Cons:**

Pros:

* This approach is simpler than the previous one, with fewer variables and no custom promise manipulation.
* It can provide a more straightforward comparison between reusing and non-reusing resources.

Cons:

* Creating multiple `audio` elements may introduce additional overhead due to DOM management and garbage collection.

**Other Alternatives:**

1. **Reuse of other resources**: Instead of `audio`, the benchmark could test the performance impact of reusing other types of resources (e.g., images, fonts, or DOM elements).
2. **Different browsers or platforms**: The benchmark could be expanded to include multiple browsers or platforms to compare performance across different environments.
3. **Additional complexity**: Introduce additional complexity to the benchmark by including factors like concurrency, caching, or network latency.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require modifications to the benchmark definition and individual test cases.

Related benchmarks:

reuse of audio elements in ratechangeTick with await (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: reusing elements vs nonreusables

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

reusing elements

nonreusables

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):