Benchmark: Instantiation of ArrayBuffer vs Normal Part 2

Script Preparation code:

var last = 100000;

Tests:

Uint32
for (let i; i < last; i++) { const x = new ArrayBuffer(4); const y = new Uint32Array(x); y[0] = 255; }
Normal
for (let i; i < last; i++) { var y = 255; }
Uint32Array
const x = new ArrayBuffer(4 * last); const y = new Uint32Array(x); last = y.length; for (let i; i < last; i++) { y[0] = 255; }
Uint8Array
const x = new ArrayBuffer(last); const y = new Uint8Array(x); last = y.length; for (let i; i < last; i++) { y[0] = 255; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Uint32
Normal
Uint32Array
Uint8Array

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/105.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 105 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Uint32	14092995.0 Ops/sec
Normal	14215886.0 Ops/sec
Uint32Array	13409.8 Ops/sec
Uint8Array	40984.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and benchmark setup.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing different approaches to instantiating an ArrayBuffer in JavaScript, specifically:

1. Instantiating an ArrayBuffer using the `new` keyword with no arguments (`const x = new ArrayBuffer(4);`)
2. Assigning a value to a variable and then instantiating an Uint32Array from that variable (`var y = 255; const x = new ArrayBuffer(y);`)
3. Instantiating a large ArrayBuffer in one step (`const x = new ArrayBuffer(4 * last);`)
4. Instantiating a smaller ArrayBuffer in one step, but with different type (`const x = new ArrayBuffer(last);`)

The goal of this benchmark is to measure the performance difference between these approaches.

**Options Compared**

There are four main options being compared:

1. `Uint32`: Instantiates an ArrayBuffer using the `new` keyword with no arguments and then creates a Uint32Array from it.
2. `Normal`: Assigns a value to a variable and then instantiates an Uint32Array from that variable.
3. `Uint32Array`: Instantiates a large ArrayBuffer in one step and then creates a Uint32Array from it.
4. `Uint8Array`: Instantiates a smaller ArrayBuffer in one step, but with different type.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`Uint32`**: This approach is simple and easy to understand. It creates an ArrayBuffer using the `new` keyword and then creates a Uint32Array from it. However, it may not be optimized for performance.
2. **`Normal`**: This approach can lead to slower performance because it involves assigning a value to a variable before creating an ArrayBuffer.
3. **`Uint32Array`**: This approach instantiates a large ArrayBuffer in one step, which can improve performance. However, it requires more memory and may not be suitable for all use cases.
4. **`Uint8Array`**: This approach is similar to `Uint32`, but uses a smaller ArrayBuffer size. It can improve performance in some cases, but its impact on performance may vary depending on the specific use case.

**Library and Purpose**

The `Uint32Array` and `Uint8Array` classes are part of the JavaScript standard library, specifically the Typed Array API. These APIs provide an efficient way to work with arrays of numbers (either 32-bit or 8-bit integers) in JavaScript.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would make it difficult to understand for most software engineers.

**Other Alternatives**

Other approaches to instantiating an ArrayBuffer might include:

1. Using a library like `Buffer.js` or `TypedArray.js`, which provide additional functionality and optimizations.
2. Using a native WebAssembly module, which can provide even better performance.
3. Using a different data structure, such as an array buffer view (`TypedArrayView`), to access the ArrayBuffer.

However, these alternatives are likely to be overkill for a simple benchmark like this one, and may not offer significant performance improvements.

Related benchmarks:

Instantiation of ArrayBuffer vs Normal Part 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Uint32 vs Normal vs Uint32Array vs Uint8Array

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Uint32

Normal

Uint32Array

Uint8Array

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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