Benchmark: array vs int16array

Script Preparation code:

function getRandomInt(max) {
  return Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.floor(max));
}
var a = [...Array(10000)].map(_ => Math.random(1000000));
var ta = (new Int16Array(10000)).map(_ => Math.random(1000000));

Tests:

array reverse
a.reverse();
typedArray reverse
ta.reverse();
array i/o
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) a[i] = a[i] + 1;
typedArray i/o
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) ta[i] = ta[i] + 1;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array reverse
typedArray reverse
array i/o
typedArray i/o

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 23 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 18_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/18.1.1 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 18 on iOS 18.1.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array reverse	206208.0 Ops/sec
typedArray reverse	585600.0 Ops/sec
array i/o	158827.5 Ops/sec
typedArray i/o	239635.7 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks, providing insights into the performance differences between various approaches.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided Benchmark Definition JSON defines a benchmark comparing `Array` and `Int16Array`. The script preparation code generates two arrays of size 10,000 with random integers. The HTML preparation code is empty.

Here's what's being tested:

1. **Array vs Int16Array**: The benchmark compares the performance of accessing elements in an ordinary `Array` (`a`) versus a typed array (`Int16Array`, `ta`). Typed arrays are designed to store specific data types, such as integers or floats, and provide better performance and memory efficiency.

**Comparison options**

Two approaches are compared:

1. **Array access**: The benchmark measures the time it takes to reverse an ordinary `Array` using the `reverse()` method.
2. **Typed Array access**: The benchmark measures the time it takes to perform similar operations on a typed array (`Int16Array`) using the same `reverse()` method.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

1. **Array access**:
	* Pros: Easier to implement, works with any type of data.
	* Cons: Slower performance due to dynamic typing and potential overhead from JavaScript's garbage collection.
2. **Typed Array access**:
	* Pros: Faster performance, reduced memory usage, and better cache locality.
	* Cons: Requires explicit type definitions, may be less flexible.

**Library**

The `getRandomInt` function is a simple utility function that generates random integers within a specified range. It's not a library per se, but rather a helper function used to populate the arrays.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax**

None are mentioned in the provided code snippet. However, it's worth noting that MeasureThat.net may use other features like `Promise` or `async/await` for benchmarking purposes, which would require additional context.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark with different approaches, some options might include:

1. Using `BigInt` instead of integers: This could provide better performance for very large numbers.
2. Comparing other data structures, such as `Set` or `Map`, against `Array`.
3. Investigating the impact of array length and density on performance.

Keep in mind that the best approach will depend on your specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

array vs int16array (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: array reverse vs typedArray reverse vs array i/o vs typedArray i/o

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array reverse

typedArray reverse

array i/o

typedArray i/o

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 months ago):