所以我想知道什么是更好的方式(在堆栈增长和性能方面)以定期间隔递归调用函数? 例如,假设我想每200毫秒读取一次文件内容。我有以下两种方法,并且想知道它们是否有任何不同?
方法1:使用普通ols setTimeout而不使用process.nextTick
var fs = require('fs');
(function loop() {
// Print to time to indicate something is happening
console.log(new Date().toString());
// Read a 51MB file
fs.readFile('./testfile', function (err, data) {
if (err) console.log(err);
});
// Call the same function again
setTimeout(function () {
loop();
}, 200);
})();
方法2:在setTimeout
中调用process.nextTickvar fs = require('fs');
(function loop() {
// Print to time to indicate something is happening
console.log(new Date().toString());
// Read a 51MB file
fs.readFile('./testfile', function (err, data) {
if (err) console.log(err);
});
// Call the same function again
setTimeout(function () {
process.nextTick(function () {
loop();
});
}, 200);
})();
我想知道的是在setTimeout中添加process.nextTick有助于与否?调用process.nextTick里面的函数会不会减轻堆栈的使用?
答案 0 :(得分:32)
以下简化示例中没有递归:
function test()
{
console.trace();
setTimeout(test, 1000);
}
test();
输出(注意堆栈没有增长)
Trace
at test (/private/tmp/rec.js:3:12)
at Object.<anonymous> (/private/tmp/rec.js:7:1)
at Module._compile (module.js:449:26)
at Object..js (module.js:467:10)
at Module.load (module.js:356:32)
at Function._load (module.js:312:12)
at module.js:487:10
at EventEmitter._tickCallback (node.js:238:9)
Trace
at Object.test [as _onTimeout] (/private/tmp/rec.js:3:12)
at Timer.ontimeout (timers.js:101:19)
Trace
at Object.test [as _onTimeout] (/private/tmp/rec.js:3:12)
at Timer.ontimeout (timers.js:101:19)
Trace
at Object.test [as _onTimeout] (/private/tmp/rec.js:3:12)
at Timer.ontimeout (timers.js:101:19)
Trace
at Object.test [as _onTimeout] (/private/tmp/rec.js:3:12)
at Timer.ontimeout (timers.js:101:19)
Trace
at Object.test [as _onTimeout] (/private/tmp/rec.js:3:12)
at Timer.ontimeout (timers.js:101:19)
Trace
at Object.test [as _onTimeout] (/private/tmp/rec.js:3:12)
at Timer.ontimeout (timers.js:101:19)