Benchmark: read write ArrayBuffer: DataView vs Float64Array.set v2

Script Preparation code:

var size = 50000;
var buf = new ArrayBuffer(size*8);
var view = new DataView(buf);
var buf2 = new ArrayBuffer(size*4);
var view2 = new DataView(buf2);
var data = new Float64Array(size);
var data2 = new Float32Array(size);

​x
 
var size = 50000;var buf = new ArrayBuffer(size*8);var view = new DataView(buf);var buf2 = new ArrayBuffer(size*4);var view2 = new DataView(buf2);var data = new Float64Array(size);var data2 = new Float32Array(size);​

Tests:

DataView

for (let i=0; i < size; i++) {
	view.setFloat64(i*8, 992.2258);
}
for (let i=0; i < size; i++) {
	const res = view.getFloat64(i*8);
}

 
for (let i=0; i < size; i++) {    view.setFloat64(i*8, 992.2258);}for (let i=0; i < size; i++) {    const res = view.getFloat64(i*8);}

Float64Array

for (let i=0; i < size; i++) {
	data[i] =  992.2258;
}
for (let i=0; i < size; i++) {
	const res = data[i];
}

 
for (let i=0; i < size; i++) {    data[i] =  992.2258;}for (let i=0; i < size; i++) {    const res = data[i];}

Float32Array

for (let i=0; i < size; i++) {
	data[i] =  992.2258;
}
for (let i=0; i < size; i++) {
	const res = data[i];
}

 
for (let i=0; i < size; i++) {    data[i] =  992.2258;}for (let i=0; i < size; i++) {    const res = data[i];}

DataView 32

for (let i=0; i < size; i++) {
	view2.setFloat32(i*4, 992.2258);
}
for (let i=0; i < size; i++) {
	const res = view2.getFloat32(i*4);
}

 
for (let i=0; i < size; i++) {    view2.setFloat32(i*4, 992.2258);}for (let i=0; i < size; i++) {    const res = view2.getFloat32(i*4);}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
DataView
Float64Array
Float32Array
DataView 32

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
DataView	172.5 Ops/sec
Float64Array	174.5 Ops/sec
Float32Array	174.2 Ops/sec
DataView 32	172.7 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 months ago):

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

Benchmark Overview

The benchmark compares the performance of four approaches:

Float64Array.set (using DataView)
Direct assignment to an array (Float64Array or Float32Array)
Using a DataView with 32-bit floating-point numbers (i.e., Float32Array)

What's being tested

The benchmark is testing the performance of writing and reading data from arrays using different approaches.

The first test case uses DataView.set to write data to an array, and then reads it back using DataView.getFloat64.
The second test case directly assigns values to a Float64Array, which becomes the source for the read operation.
The third test case is similar to the second one but uses a DataView with 32-bit floating-point numbers (Float32Array) instead of 64-bit.

Options comparison

Here's a brief overview of each option and their pros and cons:

Direct assignment: This approach is straightforward and easy to understand. However, it may incur additional overhead due to the language's garbage collection mechanism.
- Pros: Easy to implement, no additional libraries required.
- Cons: May incur performance overhead due to garbage collection.
DataView.set (using DataView): This approach uses a DataView object to write data to an array. It provides more control over memory management and can be faster than direct assignment.
- Pros: Can be faster, provides better memory management control.
- Cons: Requires understanding of DataView and its usage.
Direct assignment (32-bit float): This approach uses a Float32Array, which reduces memory usage compared to using a Float64Array. However, it may incur additional overhead due to the difference in data types.
- Pros: Reduced memory usage, potentially faster due to reduced memory access patterns.
- Cons: May incur performance overhead due to type conversion.

Library

In this benchmark, no explicit library is mentioned. However, it's worth noting that DataView and array operations are part of the standard JavaScript API.

Special JS feature or syntax

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark. The tests only involve basic arithmetic operations and array manipulation.

Alternative approaches

Other alternatives to consider when working with arrays and memory management include:

Using typed arrays (e.g., Int32Array, Uint8Array) for specific use cases.
Utilizing WebAssembly (WASM) for performance-critical code that requires direct memory access.
Employing libraries like WebAssembly's wasm-bindgen or JavaScript libraries like fastify or express for high-performance networking.

In summary, this benchmark compares the performance of different approaches to writing and reading data from arrays using JavaScript. The results can help developers understand the trade-offs between direct assignment, DataView, and 32-bit floating-point numbers when working with memory management in JavaScript.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of four approaches:

1. `Float64Array.set` (using `DataView`)
2. Direct assignment to an array (`Float64Array` or `Float32Array`)
3. Using a `DataView` with 32-bit floating-point numbers (i.e., `Float32Array`)

**What's being tested**

The benchmark is testing the performance of writing and reading data from arrays using different approaches.

1. The first test case uses `DataView.set` to write data to an array, and then reads it back using `DataView.getFloat64`.
2. The second test case directly assigns values to a `Float64Array`, which becomes the source for the read operation.
3. The third test case is similar to the second one but uses a `DataView` with 32-bit floating-point numbers (`Float32Array`) instead of 64-bit.

**Options comparison**

Here's a brief overview of each option and their pros and cons:

1. **Direct assignment**: This approach is straightforward and easy to understand. However, it may incur additional overhead due to the language's garbage collection mechanism.
	* Pros: Easy to implement, no additional libraries required.
	* Cons: May incur performance overhead due to garbage collection.
2. **DataView.set** (using `DataView`): This approach uses a `DataView` object to write data to an array. It provides more control over memory management and can be faster than direct assignment.
	* Pros: Can be faster, provides better memory management control.
	* Cons: Requires understanding of `DataView` and its usage.
3. **Direct assignment (32-bit float)**: This approach uses a `Float32Array`, which reduces memory usage compared to using a `Float64Array`. However, it may incur additional overhead due to the difference in data types.
	* Pros: Reduced memory usage, potentially faster due to reduced memory access patterns.
	* Cons: May incur performance overhead due to type conversion.

**Library**

In this benchmark, no explicit library is mentioned. However, it's worth noting that `DataView` and array operations are part of the standard JavaScript API.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark. The tests only involve basic arithmetic operations and array manipulation.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives to consider when working with arrays and memory management include:

* Using typed arrays (e.g., `Int32Array`, `Uint8Array`) for specific use cases.
* Utilizing WebAssembly (WASM) for performance-critical code that requires direct memory access.
* Employing libraries like WebAssembly's `wasm-bindgen` or JavaScript libraries like `fastify` or `express` for high-performance networking.

In summary, this benchmark compares the performance of different approaches to writing and reading data from arrays using JavaScript. The results can help developers understand the trade-offs between direct assignment, `DataView`, and 32-bit floating-point numbers when working with memory management in JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

read write ArrayBuffer: DataView vs Float64Array.set v2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: DataView vs Float64Array vs Float32Array vs DataView 32

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result