What is the Advantage of sync.WaitGroup over Channels?

I'm working on a concurrent Go library, and I stumbled upon two distinct patterns of synchronization between goroutines whose results are similar:

Waitgroup

package main

import (
	"fmt"
	"sync"
	"time"
)

var wg sync.WaitGroup

func main() {
	words := []string{"foo", "bar", "baz"}

	for _, word := range words {
		wg.Add(1)
		go func(word string) {
			time.Sleep(1 * time.Second)
			defer wg.Done()
			fmt.Println(word)
		}(word)
	}
	// do concurrent things here

	// blocks/waits for waitgroup
	wg.Wait()
}

Channel

package main

import (
	"fmt"
	"time"
)

func main() {
	words := []string{"foo", "bar", "baz"}
	done := make(chan bool)
	// defer close(done)
	for _, word := range words {
		// fmt.Println(len(done), cap(done))
		go func(word string) {
			time.Sleep(1 * time.Second)
			fmt.Println(word)
			done <- true
		}(word)
	}
	// Do concurrent things here

	// This blocks and waits for signal from channel
	for range words {
		<-done
	}
}

I was advised that sync.WaitGroup is slightly more performant, and I have seen it being used commonly. However, I find channels more idiomatic. What is the real advantage of using sync.WaitGroup over channels and/or what might be the situation when it is better?

Independently of the correctness of your second example (as explained in the comments, you aren't doing what you think, but it's easily fixable), I tend to think that the first example is easier to grasp.

Now, I wouldn't even say that channels are more idiomatic. Channels being a signature feature of the Go language shouldn't mean that it is idiomatic to use them whenever possible. What is idiomatic in Go is to use the simplest and easiest to understand solution: here, the WaitGroup convey both the meaning (your main function is Waiting for workers to be done) and the mechanic (the workers notify when they are Done).

Unless you're in a very specific case, I don't recommend using the channel solution here.

For your simple example (signalling the completion of jobs), the WaitGroup is the obvious choice. And the Go compiler is very kind and won't blame you for using a channel for the simple signalling of the completion task, but some code reviewer do.

1. "A WaitGroup waits for a collection of goroutines to finish.
   The main goroutine calls Add(n) to set the number of
   goroutines to wait for. Then each of the goroutines
   runs and calls Done() when finished. At the same time,
   Wait can be used to block until all goroutines have finished."

words := []string{"foo", "bar", "baz"}
var wg sync.WaitGroup
for _, word := range words {
wg.Add(1)
go func(word string) {
defer wg.Done()
time.Sleep(100 * time.Millisecond) // a job
fmt.Println(word)
}(word)
}
wg.Wait()

The possibilities are limited only by your imagination:

2. Channels can be buffered:

words := []string{"foo", "bar", "baz"}
done := make(chan struct{}, len(words))
for _, word := range words {
go func(word string) {
time.Sleep(100 * time.Millisecond) // a job
fmt.Println(word)
done <- struct{}{} // not blocking
}(word)
}
for range words {
<-done
}

3. Channels can be unbuffered, and you may use just a signalling channel (e.g. chan struct{}):

words := []string{"foo", "bar", "baz"}
done := make(chan struct{})
for _, word := range words {
go func(word string) {
time.Sleep(100 * time.Millisecond) // a job
fmt.Println(word)
done <- struct{}{} // blocking
}(word)
}
for range words {
<-done
}

4. You may limit the number of concurrent jobs with buffered channel capacity:

t0 := time.Now()
var wg sync.WaitGroup
words := []string{"foo", "bar", "baz"}
done := make(chan struct{}, 1) // set the number of concurrent job here
for _, word := range words {
wg.Add(1)
go func(word string) {
done <- struct{}{}
time.Sleep(100 * time.Millisecond) // job
fmt.Println(word, time.Since(t0))
<-done
wg.Done()
}(word)
}
wg.Wait()

5. You may send a message using a channel:

done := make(chan string)
go func() {
for _, word := range []string{"foo", "bar", "baz"} {
done <- word
}
close(done)
}()
for word := range done {
fmt.Println(word)
}

Benchmark:

	go test -benchmem -bench . -args -n 0
# BenchmarkEvenWaitgroup-8  1827517   652 ns/op    0 B/op  0 allocs/op
# BenchmarkEvenChannel-8    1000000  2373 ns/op  520 B/op  1 allocs/op
	go test -benchmem -bench .
# BenchmarkEvenWaitgroup-8  1770260   678 ns/op    0 B/op  0 allocs/op
# BenchmarkEvenChannel-8    1560124  1249 ns/op  158 B/op  0 allocs/op

Code(main_test.go):

package main
import (
"flag"
"fmt"
"os"
"sync"
"testing"
)
func BenchmarkEvenWaitgroup(b *testing.B) {
evenWaitgroup(b.N)
}
func BenchmarkEvenChannel(b *testing.B) {
evenChannel(b.N)
}
func evenWaitgroup(n int) {
if n%2 == 1 { // make it even:
n++
}
for i := 0; i < n; i++ {
wg.Add(1)
go func(n int) {
select {
case ch <- n: // tx if channel is empty
case i := <-ch: // rx if channel is not empty
// fmt.Println(n, i)
_ = i
}
wg.Done()
}(i)
}
wg.Wait()
}
func evenChannel(n int) {
if n%2 == 1 { // make it even:
n++
}
for i := 0; i < n; i++ {
go func(n int) {
select {
case ch <- n: // tx if channel is empty
case i := <-ch: // rx if channel is not empty
// fmt.Println(n, i)
_ = i
}
done <- struct{}{}
}(i)
}
for i := 0; i < n; i++ {
<-done
}
}
func TestMain(m *testing.M) {
var n int // We use TestMain to set up the done channel.
flag.IntVar(&n, "n", 1_000_000, "chan cap")
flag.Parse()
done = make(chan struct{}, n)
fmt.Println("n=", n)
os.Exit(m.Run())
}
var (
done chan struct{}
ch   = make(chan int)
wg   sync.WaitGroup
)

It depends on the use case. If you are dispatching one-off jobs to be run in parallel without needing to know the results of each job, then you can use a WaitGroup. But if you need to collect the results from the goroutines then you should use a channel.

Since a channel works both ways, I almost always use a channel.

On another note, as pointed out in the comment your channel example isn't implemented correctly. You would need a separate channel to indicate there are no more jobs to do (one example is here). In your case, since you know the number of words in advance, you could just use one buffered channel and receive a fixed number of times to avoid declaring a close channel.

If you are particularly sticky about using only channels, then it needs to be done differently (if we use your example does, as @Not_a_Golfer points out, it'll produce incorrect results).

One way is to make a channel of type int. In the worker process send a number each time it completes the job (this can be the unique job id too, if you want you can track this in the receiver).

In the receiver main go routine (which will know the exact number of jobs submitted) - do a range loop over a channel, count on till the number of jobs submitted are not done, and break out of the loop when all jobs are completed. This is a good way if you want to track each of the jobs completion (and maybe do something if needed).

Here's the code for your reference. Decrementing totalJobsLeft will be safe as it'll ever be done only in the range loop of the channel!

//This is just an illustration of how to sync completion of multiple jobs using a channel
//A better way many a times might be to use wait groups
package main
import (
"fmt"
"math/rand"
"time"
)
func main() {
comChannel := make(chan int)
words := []string{"foo", "bar", "baz"}
totalJobsLeft := len(words)
//We know how many jobs are being sent
for j, word := range words {
jobId := j + 1
go func(word string, jobId int) {
fmt.Println("Job ID:", jobId, "Word:", word)
//Do some work here, maybe call functions that you need
//For emulating this - Sleep for a random time upto 5 seconds
randInt := rand.Intn(5)
//fmt.Println("Got random number", randInt)
time.Sleep(time.Duration(randInt) * time.Second)
comChannel <- jobId
}(word, jobId)
}
for j := range comChannel {
fmt.Println("Got job ID", j)
totalJobsLeft--
fmt.Println("Total jobs left", totalJobsLeft)
if totalJobsLeft == 0 {
break
}
}
fmt.Println("Closing communication channel. All jobs completed!")
close(comChannel)
}

I often use channels to collect error messages from goroutines that could produce an error. Here is a simple example:

func couldGoWrong() (err error) {
errorChannel := make(chan error, 3)
// start a go routine
go func() (err error) {
defer func() { errorChannel <- err }()
for c := 0; c < 10; c++ {
_, err = fmt.Println(c)
if err != nil {
return
}
}
return
}()
// start another go routine
go func() (err error) {
defer func() { errorChannel <- err }()
for c := 10; c < 100; c++ {
_, err = fmt.Println(c)
if err != nil {
return
}
}
return
}()
// start yet another go routine
go func() (err error) {
defer func() { errorChannel <- err }()
for c := 100; c < 1000; c++ {
_, err = fmt.Println(c)
if err != nil {
return
}
}
return
}()
// synchronize go routines and collect errors here
for c := 0; c < cap(errorChannel); c++ {
err = <-errorChannel
if err != nil {
return
}
}
return
}

There are already nice answers here that channels are not alway idiomatic. For instance when worker pools is implemented it is more clear to use wait group.

Also it was noted that your channels implementation is not correct because it exits after first entry not the last one.

I decided to fix it:

package main

import (
	"fmt"
	"time"
)

func main() {
	words := []string{"foo", "bar", "baz", "fax", "bor", "far"}
	workersCount := len(words)
	workersChan := make(chan bool, workersCount)

	for _, word := range words {
		go func(word string) {
			time.Sleep(1 * time.Second)
			fmt.Println(word)
			workersChan <- true
		}(word)
	}

	for i := 0; i != workersCount; i++ {
		<-workersChan
	}
}

Also suggest to use waitgroup but still you want to do it with channel then below i mention a simple use of channel

package main
import (
"fmt"
"time"
)
func main() {
c := make(chan string)
words := []string{"foo", "bar", "baz"}
go printWordrs(words, c)
for j := range c {
fmt.Println(j)
}
}
func printWordrs(words []string, c chan string) {
defer close(c)
for _, word := range words {
time.Sleep(1 * time.Second)
c <- word
}	
}