25 days ago
Does having an idle web worker result in significant overhead?
24 days ago
The Worker.terminate() method immediately terminates the worker without giving it any chance to finish what it's doing. This does not offer the worker an opportunity to finish its operations; it is simply stopped at once. The close() method is visible inside the worker's scope. The terminate() method is a part of the worker object's interface and can be called "from the outside". There are no performance reasons for invoking Worker.terminate(). It is used when you want to stop the worker immediately without giving it any chance to finish what it's doing. If you don't need the worker again, there is no harm in leaving it running. I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.
25 days ago
Yes, there can be good performance-based reasons to call worker.terminate(). While it is true that leaving a web worker alive can save time in creating a new one later, it also consumes memory and other resources while it is idle. In some cases, having too many web workers in memory can cause the browser to crash, as you have observed in your tests. Additionally, web workers are designed to perform background tasks without blocking the main thread. If a web worker is left alive and idle, it may still consume resources and potentially interfere with other background tasks or main thread performance. Therefore, it is generally recommended to call worker.terminate() when you are done using a web worker, especially if you will not need it again in the near future. This ensures that resources are freed up for other tasks and helps prevent potential performance issues.