Benchmark: Asynchronous For-Loop

Script Preparation code:

const array1 = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10];
const array = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
  array1.push(...array);
}

Tests:

Traditional for-loop (control group)
for (let i = 0; i < array.length; i++) { console.log(array[i]); } console.log("helo");
Async for-loop (experiment)
(async () => { for (let i = 0; i < array.length; i++) { console.log(array[i]); } }); console.log("helo");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Traditional for-loop (control group)
Async for-loop (experiment)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is testing two approaches to iterate over an array: a traditional synchronous for-loop and an asynchronous for-loop using async/await syntax.

**Options compared**

The two options are:

1. **Traditional for-loop**: A synchronous for-loop that uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array.
2. **Async for-loop (experiment)**: An asynchronous for-loop that uses the `async/await` syntax to iterate over the array.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

* **Traditional for-loop**:
	+ Pros:
		- Simple and familiar syntax
		- Easy to understand and maintain
	+ Cons:
		- Can be performance-intensive due to synchronous iteration
		- May block the event loop, leading to slower performance in I/O-bound scenarios
* **Async for-loop (experiment)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Can take advantage of asynchronous iteration, reducing blocking and increasing performance in I/O-bound scenarios
		- Allows for more efficient use of system resources
	+ Cons:
		- May require additional setup and understanding of async/await syntax
		- May be less familiar to some developers

**Library usage**

In the provided benchmark code, there is no explicit library usage. However, it's worth noting that the `async` and `await` keywords are part of the JavaScript language itself, which has become more prominent in recent years due to the rise of asynchronous programming.

**Special JS features or syntax**

This benchmark uses a feature commonly known as "async/await" or "Promise-based I/O". Async/await is a way to write asynchronous code that looks and feels like synchronous code. It's a powerful tool for writing efficient, non-blocking code in JavaScript.

The test case also uses `console.log` statements for logging output, which is the most common way to print output in JavaScript.

**Other alternatives**

In addition to these two approaches, there are other ways to iterate over arrays in JavaScript:

* **For...of loop**: A more modern and concise syntax for iterating over arrays and objects.
* **Map(), Filter(), Reduce() methods**: These array methods provide a functional programming approach to iterating over arrays.

It's worth noting that the choice of iteration method ultimately depends on the specific use case, personal preference, and performance requirements.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/115.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 115 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Traditional for-loop (control group)	0.0 Ops/sec
Async for-loop (experiment)	620258.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Asynchronous For-Loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Traditional for-loop (control group) vs Async for-loop (experiment)

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Traditional for-loop (control group)

Async for-loop (experiment)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):