Benchmark: Float32Array from normal array Constructor vs loop

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
for(let i=0; i<1000000; i++){
  arr.push(i+0.111);
}

Tests:

Constructorr
const nuArr = new Float32Array(arr); const res = nuArr[100];
Loop
const len = arr.length; const nuArr = new Float32Array( new Float32Array().BYTES_PER_ELEMENT * len); for(i=0; i<len; i++){ nuArr[i] = arr[i]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Constructorr
Loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases for measuring the performance difference between creating a `Float32Array` using its constructor versus using a loop. The tests are designed to compare the execution time of these approaches.

**Options compared:**

1. **Constructor Approach**: Creating a `Float32Array` instance directly using its constructor, passing an array as an argument.
2. **Loop Approach**: Creating a new `Float32Array` instance by iterating over an existing array and copying its elements into a new array.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Constructor Approach**:
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable code
		+ Avoids explicit loop and indexing
	* Cons:
		+ May incur additional overhead due to function call and argument creation
2. **Loop Approach**:
	* Pros:
		+ More control over the copying process (e.g., handling edge cases)
		+ Can be optimized for performance (e.g., using a more efficient data structure)
	* Cons:
		+ Less concise and less readable code
		+ Requires manual loop iteration, which can introduce errors

**Other considerations:**

* The tests use the `Float32Array` class, which is used to represent arrays of 32-bit floating-point numbers. This suggests that the benchmark is focused on performance in numerical computations.
* There is no mention of any libraries or frameworks being used beyond the standard JavaScript API.

**Library usage:**

The test cases do not explicitly use any additional libraries or frameworks. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines (e.g., SpiderMonkey) provide optimizations for `Float32Array` instances that may affect the benchmark results.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

There are no notable special features or syntax being used in this benchmark. The code adheres to standard JavaScript practices and does not utilize any advanced features like async/await, Promises, or modern language constructs (e.g., destructuring).

**Other alternatives:**

Alternative approaches for creating `Float32Array` instances include:

1. Using a library like `ndarray.js` or ` typed-array`, which provide more efficient and convenient methods for working with arrays of numbers.
2. Utilizing Web Workers or WebAssembly to parallelize the computation and potentially improve performance.
3. Optimizing the loop approach by using SIMD instructions (e.g., SSE, AVX) to accelerate element-wise operations.

Keep in mind that these alternatives are not explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition and may require additional setup or modifications to the test code.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Constructorr	170.8 Ops/sec
Loop	14.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Float32Array from normal array Constructor vs loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Constructorr vs Loop

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Constructorr

Loop

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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