Benchmark: array vs int32Array

Script Preparation code:

function getRandomInt(max) {
  return Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.floor(max));
}
var a = [...Array(10000)].map(_ => Math.random(1000000));
var ta = (new Int32Array(10000)).map(_ => Math.random(1000000));

Tests:

array reverse
a.reverse();
typedArray reverse
ta.reverse();
array i/o
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) a[i] = a[i] + 1;
typedArray i/o
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) ta[i] = ta[i] + 1;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array reverse
typedArray reverse
array i/o
typedArray i/o

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

On MeasureThat.net, the provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case. The benchmark tests two approaches to handling arrays and typed arrays:

1. **Arrays**: A standard JavaScript array (`a`) with 10,000 elements is created using `Array(10000)`. This array undergoes various operations:
	* Reversal: `a.reverse()`
	* Input/Output (I/O): Each element is incremented by 1 (`a[i] = a[i] + 1`)
2. **Typed Arrays**: An `Int32Array` (`ta`) with 10,000 elements is created using `new Int32Array(10000)`. This typed array also undergoes the same operations as the standard array.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Standard JavaScript Array (a)**: Uses the built-in JavaScript array data structure.
2. **Typed Array (`ta`)**: Uses a specialized data structure optimized for numerical computations, `Int32Array`.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Standard JavaScript Array (a)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Wide browser support
		+ Easy to implement and use
	* Cons:
		+ Performance may suffer compared to typed arrays for numerical computations
2. **Typed Array (`ta`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Optimized performance for numerical computations
		+ May be faster than standard JavaScript arrays for these operations
	* Cons:
		+ Less browser support compared to standard JavaScript arrays
		+ May require more code to set up and use

**Library and purpose**

The `Int32Array` is a typed array data structure provided by the ECMAScript standard. It is designed to store 32-bit integers in an efficient manner, which makes it suitable for numerical computations.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None mentioned in this specific benchmark case.

**Other alternatives**

If you need to handle large arrays or perform complex numerical computations, other options might include:

1. **WebAssembly**: A binary format that allows running languages like C or Rust on web browsers.
2. **Native ArrayBuffers**: Used in some libraries like Three.js for handling large amounts of 3D data.

However, these alternatives are typically more complex to set up and use compared to standard JavaScript arrays and typed arrays.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 20 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 130 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array reverse	16903.5 Ops/sec
typedArray reverse	71525.8 Ops/sec
array i/o	160.4 Ops/sec
typedArray i/o	160.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

array vs int32Array (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: array reverse vs typedArray reverse vs array i/o vs typedArray i/o

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array reverse

typedArray reverse

array i/o

typedArray i/o

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):