var last = 100000;
for (let i; i < last; i++) {
const x = new ArrayBuffer(4);
const y = new Uint32Array(x);
y[0] = 16777215;
}
for (let i; i < last; i++) {
var y = 16777215;
}
const x = new ArrayBuffer(4 * last);
const y = new Uint32Array(x);
last = y.length;
for (let i; i < last; i++) {
y[0] = 16777215;
}
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Uint32 | |
Normal | |
Uint32Array |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Uint32 | 7404636.5 Ops/sec |
Normal | 7787835.0 Ops/sec |
Uint32Array | 23969.6 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the JavaScript microbenchmark provided by MeasureThat.net.
Benchmark Definition
The benchmark measures the performance of three approaches to create and use Uint32
variables in JavaScript:
Uint32
variable without allocating any memory.ArrayBuffer
using the new ArrayBuffer()
constructor, and then creating a Uint32
view from that buffer.Pros and Cons
Library and Purpose
None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that Uint32Array
is a typed array implementation that provides a more efficient way of working with 32-bit unsigned integers compared to the traditional Uint32
variable.
The test cases use no special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's standard in modern JavaScript. The use of let i;
and for (let i; i < last; i++)
is an example of a simple loop construct, which is a fundamental building block in many programming languages.
Other Alternatives
If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to this benchmark, here are some options:
Uint32Array
views from ArrayBuffers
, you could create the array directly using new Uint32Array()
. This might be slightly faster or more efficient.Keep in mind that each alternative approach has its own trade-offs, complexity levels, and potential benefits. The choice ultimately depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.