Benchmark: array vs Float64Array write performance

Script Preparation code:

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

AخA
 
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;

 
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;
for (let i = 0; i < 100000; ++i)
ta[i] = ta[i] + 1;

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
array i/o
typedArray i/o

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

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

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:

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.
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.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into explaining the benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

**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.

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