Benchmark: array vs int32array3

Tests:

array
const array = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; i++){ array.push(i); }
int32array
const array = new Int32Array(100); for(let i = 0; i < 100; i++){ array[i] = i; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array
int32array

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The provided benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using an ordinary array and using the `Int32Array` data type in JavaScript. The test cases aim to push a large amount of data (100 integers) onto each data structure, simulating a scenario where many elements need to be added.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Ordinary Array**: Using an array to store and manipulate integers.
2. **Int32Array**: A typed array that stores 32-bit integers in row-major format.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

*   Ordinary Array:
    *   Pros:
        *   Easy to use and understand for most developers.
        *   Supports various methods like `push()`, `shift()`, etc. for manipulating arrays.
        *   Can be used with other data types, not just numbers.
    *   Cons:
        *   Performance can be slower due to dynamic typing and overhead from JavaScript's garbage collection mechanism.
*   Int32Array:
    *   Pros:
        *   Provides better performance compared to ordinary arrays since it uses a typed array, which reduces overhead from JavaScript's dynamic typing.
        *   Uses less memory for storing integers, making it more efficient for large datasets.

**Other Considerations**

When using `Int32Array`, keep in mind:

*   It is limited to storing 32-bit integers and does not support other data types like floats or strings.
*   It requires creating an instance of the array with a specific size before using it, unlike ordinary arrays which can grow dynamically.

**Library Usage (None)**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, if you're interested in exploring JavaScript libraries for performance optimization, some popular ones include:

*   V8: The primary JavaScript engine used by Google Chrome.
*   SpiderMonkey: The JavaScript engine used by Mozilla Firefox.
*   JScript: The JavaScript engine used by Microsoft Edge and Internet Explorer.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax (None)**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. However, if you're interested in exploring advanced topics like:

*   Promises and async/await for handling asynchronous code
*   Closures and higher-order functions for function manipulation
*   Arrow functions and template literals for concise coding

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.77 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array	2214705.0 Ops/sec
int32array	1551654.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

array vs int32array3 (version: 0)

.

Comparing performance of: array vs int32array

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array

int32array

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):