var a = [Array(100)].map(_ => Math.random());
var ta = (new Float64Array(100)).map(_ => Math.random());
a.reverse();
ta.reverse();
for (let i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
a[i] = a[i] + 1;
for (let i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
ta[i] = ta[i] + 1;
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
array reverse | |
typedArray reverse | |
array i/o | |
typedArray i/o |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
array reverse | 6542864.5 Ops/sec |
typedArray reverse | 7424817.5 Ops/sec |
array i/o | 66043.4 Ops/sec |
typedArray i/o | 68038.9 Ops/sec |
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!
Benchmark Overview
MeasureThat.net provides a platform for users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The benchmark you provided compares two approaches: arrays and TypedArrays (specifically, Float64Array) for small data sets.
What is being tested?
The test cases measure the performance of the following operations:
a.reverse()
a[i] = a[i] + 1
)ta.reverse()
ta[i] = ta[i] + 1
)Options compared
Two options are being compared:
a
)ta
), specifically Float64Array, which is similar to a regular array but provides more efficient memory management for floating-point numbers.Pros and Cons of each approach:
Library/ Framework considerations
None are mentioned in this benchmark.
Special JS feature/syntax considerations
No special features or syntax are used in these test cases. The focus is on comparing performance between two fundamental approaches to working with arrays: native JavaScript arrays and TypedArrays.
Alternatives
Other alternatives for numerical computations in JavaScript include:
Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project. For most use cases, arrays will suffice, but if you're working with high-performance numerical computations or need more control over memory management, TypedArrays or other alternatives might be a better fit.