Scheduling: setTimeout and setInterval

We may decide to execute a function not right now, but at a certain time later. That's called "scheduling a call".

There are two methods for it:

• setTimeout allows to run a function once after the interval of time.
• setInterval allows to run a function regularly with the interval between the runs.

These methods are not a part of JavaScript specification. But most environments have the internal scheduler and provide these methods. In particular, they are supported in all browsers and Node.JS.

setTimeout

The syntax:

let timerId = setTimeout(func|code, delay[, arg1, arg2...])

Parameters:

func|code : Function or a string of code to execute. Usually, that's a function. For historical reasons, a string of code can be passed, but that's not recommended.

delay : The delay before run, in milliseconds (1000 ms = 1 second).

arg1, arg2... : Arguments for the function (not supported in IE9-)

For instance, this code calls sayHi() after one second:

function sayHi() {
  alert('Hello');
}

*!*
setTimeout(sayHi, 1000);
*/!*

With arguments:

function sayHi(phrase, who) {
  alert( phrase + ', ' + who );
}

*!*
setTimeout(sayHi, 1000, "Hello", "John"); // Hello, John
*/!*

If the first argument is a string, then JavaScript creates a function from it.

So, this will also work:

setTimeout("alert('Hello')", 1000);

But using strings is not recommended, use functions instead of them, like this:

setTimeout(() => alert('Hello'), 1000);

Novice developers sometimes make a mistake by adding brackets `()` after the function:

// wrong!
setTimeout(sayHi(), 1000);

That doesn't work, because setTimeout expects a reference to function. And here sayHi() runs the function, and the *result of its execution* is passed to setTimeout. In our case the result of sayHi() is undefined (the function returns nothing), so nothing is scheduled.

Canceling with clearTimeout

A call to setTimeout returns a "timer identifier" timerId that we can use to cancel the execution.

The syntax to cancel:

let timerId = setTimeout(...);
clearTimeout(timerId);

In the code below, we schedule the function and then cancel it (changed our mind). As a result, nothing happens:

let timerId = setTimeout(() => alert("never happens"), 1000);
alert(timerId); // timer identifier

clearTimeout(timerId);
alert(timerId); // same identifier (doesn't become null after canceling)

As we can see from alert output, in a browser the timer identifier is a number. In other environments, this can be something else. For instance, Node.JS returns a timer object with additional methods.

Again, there is no universal specification for these methods, so that's fine.

For browsers, timers are described in the timers section of HTML5 standard.

setInterval

The setInterval method has the same syntax as setTimeout:

let timerId = setInterval(func|code, delay[, arg1, arg2...])

All arguments have the same meaning. But unlike setTimeout it runs the function not only once, but regularly after the given interval of time.

To stop further calls, we should call clearInterval(timerId).

The following example will show the message every 2 seconds. After 5 seconds, the output is stopped:

// repeat with the interval of 2 seconds
let timerId = setInterval(() => alert('tick'), 2000);

// after 5 seconds stop
setTimeout(() => { clearInterval(timerId); alert('stop'); }, 5000);

In browsers IE and Firefox the internal timer continues "ticking" while showing alert/confirm/prompt, but in Chrome, Opera and Safari the internal timer becomes "frozen".

So if you run the code above and don't dismiss the alert window for some time, then in Firefox/IE next alert will be shown immediately as you do it (2 seconds passed from the previous invocation), and in Chrome/Opera/Safari - after 2 more seconds (timer did not tick during the alert).

Recursive setTimeout

There are two ways of running something regularly.

One is setInterval. The other one is a recursive setTimeout, like this:

/** instead of:
let timerId = setInterval(() => alert('tick'), 2000);
*/

let timerId = setTimeout(function tick() {
  alert('tick');
*!*
  timerId = setTimeout(tick, 2000); // (*)
*/!*
}, 2000);

The setTimeout above schedules the next call right at the end of the current one (*).

The recursive setTimeout is a more flexible method than setInterval. This way the next call may be scheduled differently, depending on the results of the current one.

For instance, we need to write a service that sends a request to the server every 5 seconds asking for data, but in case the server is overloaded, it should increase the interval to 10, 20, 40 seconds...

Here's the pseudocode:

let delay = 5000;

let timerId = setTimeout(function request() {
  ...send request...

  if (request failed due to server overload) {
    // increase the interval to the next run
    delay *= 2;
  }

  timerId = setTimeout(request, delay);

}, delay);

And if we regularly have CPU-hungry tasks, then we can measure the time taken by the execution and plan the next call sooner or later.

Recursive setTimeout guarantees a delay between the executions, setInterval -- does not.

Let's compare two code fragments. The first one uses setInterval:

let i = 1;
setInterval(function() {
  func(i);
}, 100);

The second one uses recursive setTimeout:

let i = 1;
setTimeout(function run() {
  func(i);
  setTimeout(run, 100);
}, 100);

For setInterval the internal scheduler will run func(i) every 100ms:

Did you notice? The real delay between func calls for setInterval is less than in the code! That's normal, because the time taken by func's execution "consumes" a part of the interval. It is possible that func's execution turns out to be longer than we expected and takes more than 100ms. In this case the engine waits for func to complete, then checks the scheduler and if the time is up, runs it again immediately. In the edge case, if the function always executes longer than delay ms, then the calls will happen without a pause at all. And here is the picture for the recursive setTimeout:

The recursive setTimeout guarantees the fixed delay (here 100ms).

That's because a new call is planned at the end of the previous one.

When a function is passed in setInterval/setTimeout, an internal reference is created to it and saved in the scheduler. It prevents the function from being garbage collected, even if there are no other references to it.

// the function stays in memory until the scheduler calls it
setTimeout(function() {...}, 100);

For setInterval the function stays in memory until clearInterval is called.

There's a side-effect. A function references the outer lexical environment, so, while it lives, outer variables live too. They may take much more memory than the function itself. So when we don't need the scheduled function anymore, it's better to cancel it, even if it's very small.

setTimeout(...,0)

There's a special use case: setTimeout(func, 0). This schedules the execution of func as soon as possible. But scheduler will invoke it only after the current code is complete. So the function is scheduled to run "right after" the current code. In other words, asynchronously. For instance, this outputs "Hello", then immediately "World":

setTimeout(() => alert("World"), 0);
alert("Hello");

The first line "puts the call into calendar after 0ms". But the scheduler will only "check the calendar" after the current code is complete, so "Hello" is first, and "World" - after it.

Splitting CPU-hungry tasks

There's a trick to split CPU-hungry tasks using setTimeout.

For instance, a syntax-highlighting script (used to colorize code examples on this page) is quite CPU-heavy. To highlight the code, it performs the analysis, creates many colored elements, adds them to the document -- for a big text that takes a lot. It may even cause the browser to "hang", which is unacceptable.

So we can split the long text into pieces. First 100 lines, then plan another 100 lines using setTimeout(...,0), and so on.

For clarity, let's take a simpler example for consideration. We have a function to count from 1 to 1000000000.

If you run it, the CPU will hang. For server-side JS that's clearly noticeable, and if you are running it in-browser, then try to click other buttons on the page -- you'll see that whole JavaScript actually is paused, no other actions work until it finishes.

let i = 0;

let start = Date.now();

function count() {
  // do a heavy job
  for (let j = 0; j < 1e9; j++) {
    i++;
  }
  alert("Done in " + (Date.now() - start) + 'ms');
}

count();

The browser may even show "the script takes too long" warning (but hopefully it won't, because the number is not very big).

Let's split the job using the nested setTimeout:

let i = 0;
let start = Date.now();

function count() {

  // do a piece of the heavy job (*)
  do {
    i++;
  } while (i % 1e6 != 0);

  if (i == 1e9) {
    alert("Done in " + (Date.now() - start) + 'ms');
  } else {
    setTimeout(count, 0); // schedule the new call (**)
  }
}

count();

Now the browser UI is fully functional during the "counting" process.

We do a part of the job (*):

1. First run: i=1...1000000.
2. Second run: i=1000001..2000000.
3. ...and so on, the while checks if i is evenly divided by 1000000.

Then the next call is scheduled in (**) if we're not done yet.

Pauses between count executions provide just enough "breath" for the JavaScript engine to do something else, to react to other user actions.

The notable thing is that both variants -- with and without splitting the job by setTimeout -- are comparable in speed. There's no much difference in the overall counting time.

To make them closer, let's make an improvement.

We'll move the scheduling in the beginning of the count():

let i = 0;
let start = Date.now();

function count() {

  // move the scheduling at the beginning
  if (i < 1e9 - 1e6) {
    setTimeout(count, 0); // schedule the new call
  }

  do {
    i++;
  } while (i % 1e6 != 0);

  if (i == 1e9) {
    alert("Done in " + (Date.now() - start) + 'ms');
  }
}

count();

Now when we start to count() and know that we'll need to count() more, we schedule that immediately, before doing the job.

If you run it, it's easy to notice that it takes significantly less time.

 In the browser, there's a limitation of how often nested timers can run. The HTML5 standard says: "after five nested timers, the interval is forced to be at least four milliseconds.".

Let's demonstrate what it means with the example below. The setTimeout call in it re-schedules itself after 0ms. Each call remembers the real time from the previous one in the `times` array. What do the real delays look like? Let's see:

let start = Date.now();
let times = [];

setTimeout(function run() {
  times.push(Date.now() - start); // remember delay from the previous call

  if (start + 100 < Date.now()) alert(times); // show the delays after 100ms
  else setTimeout(run, 0); // else re-schedule
}, 0);

// an example of the output:
// 1,1,1,1,9,15,20,24,30,35,40,45,50,55,59,64,70,75,80,85,90,95,100

First timers run immediately (just as written in the spec), and then the delay comes into play and we see 9, 15, 20, 24....

That limitation comes from ancient times and many scripts rely on it, so it exists for historical reasons.

For server-side JavaScript, that limitation does not exist, and there exist other ways to schedule an immediate asynchronous job, like process.nextTick  and setImmediate for Node.JS. So the notion is browser-specific only.

Allowing the browser to render

Another benefit for in-browser scripts is that they can show a progress bar or something to the user. That's because the browser usually does all "repainting" after the script is complete.

So if we do a single huge function then even if it changes something, the changes are not reflected in the document till it finishes.

Here's the demo:

<div id="progress"></div>

<script>
  let i = 0;

  function count() {
    for (let j = 0; j < 1e6; j++) {
      i++;
      // put the current i into the <div>
      // (we'll talk more about innerHTML in the specific chapter, should be obvious here)
      progress.innerHTML = i;
    }
  }

  count();
</script>

If you run it, the changes to i will show up after the whole count finishes.

And if we use setTimeout to split it into pieces then changes are applied in-between the runs, so this looks better:

<div id="progress"></div>
<script>
  let i = 0;

  function count() {

    // do a piece of the heavy job (*)
    do {
      i++;
      progress.innerHTML = i;
    } while (i % 1e3 != 0);

    if (i < 1e9) {
      setTimeout(count, 0);
    }
  }

  count();
</script>

Now the <div> shows increasing values of i.

Summary

• Methods setInterval(func, delay, ...args) and setTimeout(func, delay, ...args) allow to run the func regularly/once after delay milliseconds.
• To cancel the execution, we should call clearInterval/clearTimeout with the value returned by setInterval/setTimeout.
• Nested setTimeout calls is a more flexible alternative to setInterval. Also they can guarantee the minimal time between the executions.
• Zero-timeout scheduling setTimeout(...,0) is used to schedule the call "as soon as possible, but after the current code is complete".

Some use cases of setTimeout(...,0):

• To split CPU-hungry tasks into pieces, so that the script doesn't "hang"
• To let the browser do something else while the process is going on (paint the progress bar).

Please note that all scheduling methods do not guarantee the exact delay. We should not rely on that in the scheduled code.

For example, the in-browser timer may slow down for a lot of reasons:

• The CPU is overloaded.
• The browser tab is in the background mode.
• The laptop is on battery.

All that may increase the minimal timer resolution (the minimal delay) to 300ms or even 1000ms depending on the browser and settings.