var size = 4 * 4096;
var buf = new ArrayBuffer(size);
var view = new DataView(buf);
var byte = new Uint32Array(buf);
var data = [];
for (let i = 0; i < size; i++) {
data[i] = 100*Math.random();
}
for (let i = 0; i < size / 4; ++i) {
view.setUint32(i, data[i]);
}
for (let i; i < size / 4; ++i) {
byte[i] = data[i];
}
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
DataView | |
Uint32 |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
DataView | 15090.0 Ops/sec |
Uint32 | 686710272.0 Ops/sec |
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!
What is tested?
The provided JSON represents two individual test cases, each comparing a different approach for storing and manipulating integer data in JavaScript: DataView
and Uint32Array
.
Options compared:
The test cases aim to debunk the myth that DataView
is slower than Uint32Array
for simple integer operations.
Pros and Cons:
DataView
, requiring additional workarounds or polyfills.DataView
due to its array-based nature.DataView
.Library and purpose:
In the provided benchmark definition JSON, there is no explicit library mentioned. However, it's worth noting that DataView
is a built-in JavaScript object that allows direct access to ArrayBuffer memory views.
Special JS feature or syntax:
There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.
Other alternatives:
If you were to implement this benchmark using other approaches, some alternatives could be:
Uint32Array
, you could use other typed arrays like Int32Array
or Float64Array
.DataView
or Uint32Array
, you could implement your own custom buffer management system to optimize performance.Keep in mind that each alternative would require significant changes to the benchmark code and might not accurately represent the original intent of comparing DataView
and Uint32Array
.