process.nextTick vs setTimeout(fn, 0)

nextTick.js

for (var i = 0; i < 1024 * 1024; i++) {
  process.nextTick(function () { Math.sqrt(i) } )
}

results.md

Results

Intel i7 890 @ 2.93 GHz x64, node compiled with -march=native -mtune=native:

$ time node nextTick.js 

real	0m0.344s
user	0m0.276s
sys 	0m0.067s

$ time node setTimeout.js 

real	0m9.125s
user	0m8.707s
sys 	0m0.410s

Feel free to fork and add your results!

setTimeout.js

for (var i = 0; i < 1024 * 1024; i++) {
  setTimeout(function () { Math.sqrt(i) }, 0)
}

That's interesting. I bet intervals just got faster - I ran my tests at a pretty old version of node. Too bad I didn't specify it (I don't actually remember it right now).

0.6.8 here. :)

$ time node nextTick.js

real 0m0.534s
user 0m0.467s
sys 0m0.069s

$ time node setTimeout.js

real 0m10.724s
user 0m10.163s
sys 0m0.678s

on my 13" Air

Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E7400 @ 2.80GHz
node v0.6.17

$ time node nextTick.js

real 0m0.622s
user 0m0.532s
sys 0m0.084s

$ time node timeOut.js

real 0m11.111s
user 0m10.273s
sys 0m0.636s

node nextTick.js 3.11s user 0.24s system 93% cpu 3.587 total
node setTimeout.js 31.21s user 1.59s system 89% cpu 36.616 total

This kills the Atom processor.

$ uname -a
Darwin MacBook-Air-13.local 11.4.0 Darwin Kernel Version 11.4.0: Mon Apr  9 19:32:15 PDT 2012; root:xnu-1699.26.8~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64

$ node -v
v0.8.0

$ time node nextTick.js 
real   0m0.833s
user   0m0.714s
sys    0m0.117s

$ time node setTimeout.js 
real   0m2.600s
user   0m2.312s
sys    0m0.211s

intel core i5 @2.4 GHZ

$ node -v
v0.8.2

for (var i = 0; i < 1024 * 1024; i++) {
    process.nextTick(function () { Math.sqrt(i) } )
}

$ time node nextTick.js 
real    0m0.654s
user    0m0.576s
sys 0m0.076s

for (var i = 0; i < 1024 * 1024; i++) {
    setTimeout(function () { Math.sqrt(i) }, 0)
}

$ time node setTimeout.js 
real    0m1.740s
user    0m1.608s
sys 0m0.140s

var batch = 128;
for (var i = 0; i < 1024 * 1024; i+= batch) {
    (function(i) {
        setTimeout(function () {
            for (var j = i; j<i+batch; j += 1) {
                Math.sqrt(j)
            }
        }, 0)
    })(i);
}

$ time node setTimeoutBatch.js 
real    0m0.094s
user    0m0.084s
sys 0m0.008s

for (var i = 0; i < 1024 * 1024; i += 1) {
    Math.sqrt(i)
}

$ time node forLoop.js 
real    0m0.049s
user    0m0.044s
sys 0m0.000s

Seems that setTimeout(fn, 0) is not so bad if used more efficient.

What's the point of doing

 for (var i=0; i<1<<20; i++)
      async(function() { Math.sqrt(1<<20); });

Seems someone has forgotten a closure, to extract a root from very many integers you would do

 for (var i=0; i<1<<20; i++)
       async( Math.sqrt.bind(Math, i) );

$ uname -a
Linux ### 3.5.0-26-generic #42-Ubuntu SMP Fri Mar 8 23:18:20 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

$ node -v
v0.8.22
$ time node nextTick.js

real 0m0.787s
user 0m0.704s
sys 0m0.088s
$ time node setTimeout.js

real 0m2.874s
user 0m2.708s
sys 0m0.208s

$ uname -a
Darwin Lourenzo-Mac-Mini.local 12.4.0 Darwin Kernel Version 12.4.0: Wed May 1 17:57:12 PDT 2013; root:xnu-2050.24.15~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64 i386 Macmini6,1 Darwin

$ node -v
v0.10.15

$ time node nextTick.js

real 0m0.650s
user 0m0.505s
sys 0m0.074s

$ time node setTimeout.js

real 0m1.067s
user 0m0.985s
sys 0m0.086s

"setTimeout" usually has built-in minimal delay value (which is a few ms). Even if you call "setTimeout" with 0 ms delay it will still run with at least with few ms delay. This is an another reason why it is so slow in these "benchmarks".

See: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/API/window.setTimeout#Notes

400 MHz ARM926EJ-STM ARM® Thumb® Processor
32 Kbytes Data Cache, 32 Kbytes Instruction Cache, MMU

[root@alarm ~]# uname -a
Linux alarm 3.1.0-g6853fe7 #6 PREEMPT Tue Mar 4 21:53:22 CST 2014 armv5tejl GNU/Linux
[root@alarm ~]# node -v
v0.10.26
[root@alarm ~]# time node nextTick.js 

real    0m47.661s
user    0m46.309s
sys 0m1.352s
[root@alarm ~]# time node setTimeout.js 

real    2m10.043s
user    2m4.707s
sys 0m5.332s

Is expected this result on arm platform?

RAM 3.7 GiB
Processor Intel® Core™ i5-2467M CPU @ 1.60GHz × 4
Arch 64-bit
OS Linux, Ubuntu 13.10

$ time node nextTick.js
 real   0m0.749s
 user   0m0.630s
 sys    0m0.089s

$ time node setTimeout.js
 real   0m1.294s
 user   0m1.223s
 sys    0m0.080s

RAM: 4 GiB
Proc: [email protected]
OS: Win 7x64

$ time node benchmark/nextTick.js
real    0m0.843s +/- 0.078
user    0m0.015s
sys     0m0.016s

$ time node benchmark/setTimeout.js
real    0m1.468s +/- 0.048
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.015s

Ubuntu-14.04
node -v: v0.10.35

$ time node nextTick.js
0.42s user 0.04s system 99% cpu 0.465 total
$ time node setTimeout.js
1.08s user 0.23s system 100% cpu 1.306 total

😄 👍

$ time node nextTick.js && time node setTimeout.js 

real    0m1.044s
user    0m0.933s
sys     0m0.120s

real    0m1.499s
user    0m1.420s
sys     0m0.117s

Meh.

Can someone explain why there is a difference? In fact, I am facing an issue where setTimeout(f, 0) and process.nextTick(f) behave entirely different. Within a loop, the first will work as expected, whilst the second appears to not work.

Ubuntu 15.10 (VMWare player)
6 cpu | E5-1650 @ 3.2
Node 5.0.0

Average results after 3 runs

(With other node processes opened)

$ time node nextTick.js 
real    0m0.924s
user    0m0.584s
sys     0m0.348s

$ time node setTimeout.js 
real    0m0.732s
user    0m0.608s
sys     0m0.124s

(No ther node processes opened)

$ time node nextTick.js 
real    0m0.800s
user    0m0.736s
sys     0m0.072s

$ time node setTimeout.js 
real    0m0.714s
user    0m0.644s
sys     0m0.076s

I think you must compare setTimeout(fn, 0) to setImmediate(fn), but I think setImmediate will be still a bit faster.

$ uname -a
Darwin Wind.local 15.4.0 Darwin Kernel Version 15.4.0: Fri Feb 26 22:08:05 PST 2016; root:xnu-3248.40.184~3/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64

$ node -v
v5.0.0

$ time node nextTick.js 
real    0m0.761s
user    0m0.691s
sys     0m0.075s

$ time node setTimeout.js 
real    0m0.728s
user    0m0.657s
sys     0m0.074s

$ time node setImmediate.js 
real    0m0.682s
user    0m0.621s
sys     0m0.064s

@ismoura No much difference right?

$ uname -a
 Linux  4.7.0-040700-generic #201608021801 SMP Tue Aug 2 22:03:09 UTC 2016 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

 $ lsb_release -a
 Distributor ID:    Ubuntu
 Description:          Ubuntu 16.04.1 LTS
 Release:          16.04
 Codename:         xenial

  $ node -v
  v6.4.0

  $ time node nextTick.js 

  real      0m2.449s
  user     0m2.252s
  sys      0m0.124s

 $ time node setTimeout.js 

 real        0m2.693s
 user       0m1.604s
 sys         0m0.156s

Using let

$ time node nextTick.js 

real    0m2.875s
user    0m2.768s
sys 0m0.156s

$ time node setTimeout.js 

real    0m2.305s
user    0m2.128s
sys 0m0.108s

Using var

$ time node nextTick.js 

real    0m2.300s
user    0m2.256s
sys 0m0.088s

$ time node setTimeout.js 

real    0m1.699s
user    0m1.588s
sys 0m0.108s

RAM 8G
core 2

time node nexttick.js
real	0m0.863s
user	0m0.795s
sys	0m0.089s

time node timeoutqps.js
real	0m1.084s
user	0m0.978s
sys	0m0.111s

Darwin Kernel Version 16.3.0: Thu Nov 17 20:23:58 PST 2016; root:xnu-3789.31.2~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64

node v7.2.0

node nextTick.js 0.62s user 0.12s system 99% cpu 0.747 total

node setTimeout.js 0.70s user 0.11s system 98% cpu 0.821 total

@IngwiePhoenix The explanation is here: https://nodejs.org/en/docs/guides/event-loop-timers-and-nexttick/#process-nexttick-vs-setimmediate

process.nextTick() allows you to "starve" your I/O events. setImmediate is safer.

$ uname -a
Darwin MacBook-Pro.local 18.7.0 Darwin Kernel Version 18.7.0: Tue Aug 20 16:57:14 PDT 2019; root:xnu-4903.271.2~2/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64

$ node -v
v12.11.1

$ time node nextTick.js 
node nextTick.js  0.52s user 0.12s system 189% cpu 0.338 total

$ time node setTimeout.js 
node setTimeout.js  1.09s user 0.12s system 128% cpu 0.938 total

on ubuntu virtual machine

time node nextTick.js

real	0m0.669s
user	0m0.487s
sys	0m0.357s


time node setTimeout.js

real	0m1.513s
user	0m1.709s
sys	0m0.090s