Benchmark: array vs Float64Array write performance

Script Preparation code:

var a = [...Array(100000)].map(_ => Math.random());
var ta = (new Float64Array(100000)).map(_ => Math.random());

Tests:

array i/o
for (let i = 0; i < 100000; ++i) a[i] = a[i] + 1;
typedArray i/o
for (let i = 0; i < 100000; ++i) ta[i] = ta[i] + 1;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
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.

Let's dive into explaining the benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case on the MeasureThat.net website. The test compares the performance of writing to a regular JavaScript array (`a`) versus a typed array (`Float64Array`).

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Writing to a regular JavaScript array**: This involves writing values to an array using the `[]` syntax, where each element is initialized with a random value.
2. **Writing to a Float64Array**: This involves writing values to a typed array of 64-bit floating-point numbers (`Float64Array`) using the same syntax as above.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Regular JavaScript array**:
	+ Pros: Wide support, easy to use, and widely adopted.
	+ Cons: Performance might be slower due to type checking and potential memory allocation issues.
* **Float64Array**:
	+ Pros: Optimized for floating-point operations, reduces memory allocations, and can improve performance.
	+ Cons: Less supported than regular JavaScript arrays (not all browsers support it), requires more precise understanding of typed arrays.

**Library and Purpose**

In this test case, the `Float64Array` is used as a library to compare its performance with regular JavaScript arrays. The purpose of using `Float64Array` is to highlight the benefits of optimized floating-point operations in certain scenarios.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between writing to a regular array and a typed array, consider the specific use case and performance requirements:

* If you need to perform frequent random access or caching operations on large arrays, `Float64Array` might be a better choice.
* If you're working with small arrays or don't require precise floating-point control, a regular JavaScript array might be sufficient.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to MeasureThat.net, consider the following resources:

* jsbench.com: A JavaScript performance benchmarking tool.
* micro-benchmark.org: A platform for running JavaScript benchmarks.
* testbench.js.org: A testing framework with built-in support for benchmarking.

These tools and platforms offer similar functionality to MeasureThat.net, allowing you to run and compare different JavaScript benchmarks.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:100.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/100.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 100 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array i/o	2104.2 Ops/sec
typedArray i/o	3074.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

array vs Float64Array write performance (version: 0)

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

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

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):