streamline vs. callbacks bench

benchCallbacks.js

"use strict";
var fs = require('fs');
var cache = {}, hit = 0, missed = 0;

function load(name, cb) {
	var res = cache[name];
	if (res) {
		process.nextTick(function() {
			hit++;
			cb(null, res);
		});
	} else {
		fs.readFile(name, function(err, data) {
			missed++;
			cb(null, cache[name] = data);
		});
	}
}

var count = 1000000;

function bench(cb) {
	var total = 0;
	function loop(i) {
		if (i === count) {
			cb(null, total);
		} else {
			load(__dirname + '/benchCallbacks.js', function(err, data) {
				if (err) return cb(err);
				total += data.length;
				loop(i + 1);
			})
		}
	}
	loop(0);
}


var t0 = Date.now();
bench(function(err, result) {
	if (err) throw err;
	console.log('hit=' + hit + ', missed=' + missed + ', result=' + result);
	console.log('elapsed: ' + (Date.now() - t0));
});

benchStreamline._js

"use strict";
var fs = require('fs');
var cache = {}, hit = 0, missed = 0;

function load(name, _) {
	var res = cache[name];
	if (res) {
		hit++;
		return res;
	} else {
		missed++;
		return cache[name] = fs.readFile(name, _);
	}
}

var count = 1000000;

function bench(_) {
	var total = 0;
	for (var i = 0; i < count; i++) {
		var res = load(__dirname + '/benchCallbacks.js', _);
		total += res.length;
	}
	return total;
}

var t0 = Date.now();
var result = bench(_);
console.log('hit=' + hit + ', missed=' + missed + ', result=' + result);
console.log('elapsed: ' + (Date.now() - t0));

Thanks Nalply.

Just published a follow-up post on my blog: http://bjouhier.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/node-js-awesome-runtime-and-new-age-javascript-gospel/

As a side note, could it be that the fiber version runs faster because async calls are so much more expensive than sync ones?

See http://jsperf.com/asynch-cost

Surprised? well... you now understand better my "node anxiety" issue -- http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2371152