var array = new Float32Array(10000);
var array_with_attributes = new Float32Array(10000);
array_with_attributes.foo = 1;
for (var i = 0, li = array.length; i < li; i++) { array[i] = i; }
for (var i = 0, li = array_with_attributes.length; i < li; i++) { array_with_attributes[i] = i; }
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
without attributes | |
with attributes |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
without attributes | 1115.5 Ops/sec |
with attributes | 1115.4 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.
What is tested:
The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares the performance of two approaches:
foo
) to the array.Options compared:
The two tests use the same underlying data structure (a Float32Array), but differ in how they handle adding attributes to the array. The first test does not add any attributes to the array, while the second test adds an attribute (foo = 1
).
Pros and cons of each approach:
In general, adding attributes to a TypedArray can be useful when working with complex data structures, but it may come at the cost of performance. The benchmark helps to quantify this trade-off.
Library usage:
There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided code snippets. However, TypedArrays are a built-in JavaScript feature, introduced in ECMAScript 5 (ES5).
Special JS features or syntax:
None are explicitly used in the provided code snippets. However, it's worth noting that some modern JavaScript features like let
and const
declarations may be used implicitly due to function scoping (e.g., var i = 0;
). But this is not relevant to the specific benchmark.
Other alternatives:
If you wanted to run a similar benchmark with different options, here are some alternative approaches:
Keep in mind that these alternatives would change the fundamental nature of the benchmark, so it's essential to carefully consider the goals and requirements of your testing when exploring different approaches.