0
I’m studying a little webworkers and created that scenario:
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8" />
</head>
<script src="index.js"></script>
<script src="Http.js"></script>
<body>
<div id="log">
<button onclick="sayHI()">Say HI</button>
<output id="result"></output>
</div>
<script>
function sayHI() {
console.log('oi');
}
let options = {
length: 1000000
}
let vetor = [];
console.time('start');
for (let i = 0; i < options.length; i++) {
let obj = {
id: Math.random() * 10,
timestamp: new Date(),
nome: (Math.random()).toString().split(0, 50)[0],
sobrenome: (Math.random()).toString().split(0, 100)[0],
seila: (Math.random()).toString().split(0, 500)[0],
}
vetor.push(obj);
}
console.timeEnd('start');
/*
let worker = new Worker('index.js');
worker.addEventListener('message', function (e) {
vetor.push(e.data.obj);
if ((e.data.length +1 )== options.length) {
console.timeEnd('start');
}
}, false);
worker.postMessage(options);*/
</script>
</body>
</html>
Code of the webworker:
addEventListener('message', function (e) {
for (let i = 0; i < e.data.length; i++) {
let obj = {
id: Math.random() * 10,
timestamp: new Date(),
nome: (Math.random()).toString().split(0, 50)[0],
sobrenome: (Math.random()).toString().split(0, 100)[0],
seila: (Math.random()).toString().split(0, 500)[0],
}
postMessage({obj: obj, length: i});
}
});
Running the two examples I got these results:
- Webworker-free: start:
5378ms - With webworker: start:
18969ms
The difference is very big. Because the worker works on another thread, I imagined that the performance would be similar or even better. But what I realized is that, because it is a new thread, I can quietly keep calling my button "Say HI" that it will work, but the fact of calling it 1 or N times interferes in the final time that the webworker will take to finish the task.
Is that right? It should take so much longer to process something?
Related, perhaps duplicate, https://answall.com/questions/1946
– Costamilam
Excellent response
– Paulo Gustavo