Benchmark: TypedArray fill vs loop

Script Preparation code:

var arr = new Float64Array(1024);

Tests:

native fill
arr.fill(3301.42);
loop
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) { arr[i] = 3301.42; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native fill
loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year 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
native fill	1664064.6 Ops/sec
loop	5419.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case, specifically designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using `TypedArray.fill()` and iterating over an array using a loop.

**What is being tested?**

In this benchmark, we're measuring the time it takes to fill a `Float64Array` with a specific value (3301.42) using two different methods:

1. **Native `fill()` method**: This method uses the built-in `fill()` function of the `TypedArray` object, which is optimized for performance.
2. **Loop-based approach**: This involves iterating over each element of the array and assigning a value to it manually.

**Options being compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Native `fill()` method
* Loop-based approach

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Native `fill()` method**:
	* Pros:
		+ Optimized for performance by the JavaScript engine.
		+ Typically faster than a loop-based approach, especially for large arrays.
	* Cons:
		+ May not work as expected in older browsers or with certain types of data.
2. **Loop-based approach**:
	* Pros:
		+ More control over individual elements and their assignment.
		+ May be beneficial for specific use cases where the native `fill()` method is insufficient.
	* Cons:
		+ Typically slower than the native `fill()` method due to the overhead of manual iteration.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, the `Float64Array` object is a built-in JavaScript type that provides optimized performance for floating-point numbers.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax**

The benchmark uses a specific value (3301.42) which might be relevant to certain use cases, such as scientific computing or numerical analysis. No special JavaScript features or syntax are mentioned in this particular benchmark.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for filling TypedArrays, you could consider using:

* `Uint8Array` with bitwise operations (e.g., using `bitwiseFill()`).
* `Buffer` objects from Node.js.
* Custom implementation using a library like ` typed-array-iterator`.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The provided Script Preparation Code sets up the benchmark environment by creating a new `Float64Array` instance with 1024 elements:
```javascript
var arr = new Float64Array(1024);
```
This ensures consistent results across different runs of the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

TypedArray fill vs loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: native fill vs loop

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

native fill

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):