Benchmark: SetTimeout 0 vs nothing

Tests:

0
setTimeout(() => { console.log('boas') }, 0);
none
setTimeout(() => { console.log('boas') });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
0
none

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the explanation into smaller sections to make it easier to understand.

**Benchmark Definition and Preparation Code**

The provided JSON defines a benchmark with two test cases:

* The `Name` field is "SetTimeout 0 vs nothing", indicating that this benchmark compares the performance of setting a timeout to 0 (immediately) versus not using any timeout.
* The `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code` fields are empty, which means no additional setup or HTML rendering code is required for these test cases.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **"0"`**: This test case uses the `setTimeout` function with a timeout value of 0, which tells the browser to execute the provided callback function immediately.
2. **"none"`**: This test case does not use any `setTimeout` function; it simply logs "boas" directly to the console.

**Library: setTimeout**

The `setTimeout` function is a built-in JavaScript function that allows you to schedule a task to be executed after a specified delay. In this benchmark, both test cases rely on `setTimeout`, but with different timeout values (0 for the first test case).

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

* **Immediate execution**: Setting a timeout to 0 ensures immediate execution of the callback function. However, this might not be suitable for all use cases where delayed execution is necessary.
* **Delayed execution**: Not using any `setTimeout` means the task will execute immediately, but it can lead to performance issues if the task is computationally expensive or has side effects.

**Special Considerations**

In this benchmark, there are no special JavaScript features or syntax that require specific handling. The test cases only rely on the standard `setTimeout` function and logging to the console.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to create a similar benchmark, you could consider the following alternatives:

* Use a different function, such as `requestAnimationFrame` (for animations or tasks with a shorter execution time) or `setInterval` (for tasks that need to repeat at regular intervals).
* Compare the performance of different JavaScript engines or platforms.
* Test the impact of using `setTimeout` on a larger scale (e.g., by creating multiple concurrent timers).

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require modifying the benchmark definition and test cases accordingly.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/97.0.4692.71 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 97 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
0	492685.6 Ops/sec
none	512282.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

SetTimeout 0 vs nothing (version: 0)

Test

Comparing performance of: 0 vs none

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

0

none

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):