Benchmark: Instantiation of ArrayBuffer vs Normal Part 2

Script Preparation code:

var last = 100000;

AخA
 
var last = 100000;

Tests:

Uint32

for (let i; i < last; i++) {
	const x = new ArrayBuffer(4);
    const y = new Uint32Array(x);
    y[0] = 255;
}

 
for (let i; i < last; i++) {    const x = new ArrayBuffer(4);    const y = new Uint32Array(x);    y[0] = 255;}

Normal

for (let i; i < last; i++) {
	var y = 255;
}

 
for (let i; i < last; i++) {    var y = 255;}

Uint32Array

const x = new ArrayBuffer(4 * last);
const y = new Uint32Array(x);
last = y.length;
for (let i; i < last; i++) {
    y[0] = 255;
}

 
const x = new ArrayBuffer(4 * last);const y = new Uint32Array(x);last = y.length;for (let i; i < last; i++) {    y[0] = 255;}

Uint8Array

const x = new ArrayBuffer(last);
const y = new Uint8Array(x);
last = y.length;
for (let i; i < last; i++) {
    y[0] = 255;
}

 
const x = new ArrayBuffer(last);const y = new Uint8Array(x);last = y.length;for (let i; i < last; i++) {    y[0] = 255;}

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
Uint32
Normal
Uint32Array
Uint8Array

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/105.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 105 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Uint32	14092995.0 Ops/sec
Normal	14215886.0 Ops/sec
Uint32Array	13409.8 Ops/sec
Uint8Array	40984.4 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

Let's break down the provided JSON and benchmark setup.

Benchmark Definition

The benchmark is comparing different approaches to instantiating an ArrayBuffer in JavaScript, specifically:

Instantiating an ArrayBuffer using the new keyword with no arguments (const x = new ArrayBuffer(4);)
Assigning a value to a variable and then instantiating an Uint32Array from that variable (var y = 255; const x = new ArrayBuffer(y);)
Instantiating a large ArrayBuffer in one step (const x = new ArrayBuffer(4 * last);)
Instantiating a smaller ArrayBuffer in one step, but with different type (const x = new ArrayBuffer(last);)

The goal of this benchmark is to measure the performance difference between these approaches.

Options Compared

There are four main options being compared:

Uint32: Instantiates an ArrayBuffer using the new keyword with no arguments and then creates a Uint32Array from it.
Normal: Assigns a value to a variable and then instantiates an Uint32Array from that variable.
Uint32Array: Instantiates a large ArrayBuffer in one step and then creates a Uint32Array from it.
Uint8Array: Instantiates a smaller ArrayBuffer in one step, but with different type.

Pros and Cons of Each Approach

Uint32: This approach is simple and easy to understand. It creates an ArrayBuffer using the new keyword and then creates a Uint32Array from it. However, it may not be optimized for performance.
Normal: This approach can lead to slower performance because it involves assigning a value to a variable before creating an ArrayBuffer.
Uint32Array: This approach instantiates a large ArrayBuffer in one step, which can improve performance. However, it requires more memory and may not be suitable for all use cases.
Uint8Array: This approach is similar to Uint32, but uses a smaller ArrayBuffer size. It can improve performance in some cases, but its impact on performance may vary depending on the specific use case.

Library and Purpose

The Uint32Array and Uint8Array classes are part of the JavaScript standard library, specifically the Typed Array API. These APIs provide an efficient way to work with arrays of numbers (either 32-bit or 8-bit integers) in JavaScript.

Special JS Feature/Syntax

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would make it difficult to understand for most software engineers.

Other Alternatives

Other approaches to instantiating an ArrayBuffer might include:

Using a library like Buffer.js or TypedArray.js, which provide additional functionality and optimizations.
Using a native WebAssembly module, which can provide even better performance.
Using a different data structure, such as an array buffer view (TypedArrayView), to access the ArrayBuffer.

However, these alternatives are likely to be overkill for a simple benchmark like this one, and may not offer significant performance improvements.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and benchmark setup.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing different approaches to instantiating an ArrayBuffer in JavaScript, specifically:

1. Instantiating an ArrayBuffer using the `new` keyword with no arguments (`const x = new ArrayBuffer(4);`)
2. Assigning a value to a variable and then instantiating an Uint32Array from that variable (`var y = 255; const x = new ArrayBuffer(y);`)
3. Instantiating a large ArrayBuffer in one step (`const x = new ArrayBuffer(4 * last);`)
4. Instantiating a smaller ArrayBuffer in one step, but with different type (`const x = new ArrayBuffer(last);`)

The goal of this benchmark is to measure the performance difference between these approaches.

**Options Compared**

There are four main options being compared:

1. `Uint32`: Instantiates an ArrayBuffer using the `new` keyword with no arguments and then creates a Uint32Array from it.
2. `Normal`: Assigns a value to a variable and then instantiates an Uint32Array from that variable.
3. `Uint32Array`: Instantiates a large ArrayBuffer in one step and then creates a Uint32Array from it.
4. `Uint8Array`: Instantiates a smaller ArrayBuffer in one step, but with different type.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`Uint32`**: This approach is simple and easy to understand. It creates an ArrayBuffer using the `new` keyword and then creates a Uint32Array from it. However, it may not be optimized for performance.
2. **`Normal`**: This approach can lead to slower performance because it involves assigning a value to a variable before creating an ArrayBuffer.
3. **`Uint32Array`**: This approach instantiates a large ArrayBuffer in one step, which can improve performance. However, it requires more memory and may not be suitable for all use cases.
4. **`Uint8Array`**: This approach is similar to `Uint32`, but uses a smaller ArrayBuffer size. It can improve performance in some cases, but its impact on performance may vary depending on the specific use case.

**Library and Purpose**

The `Uint32Array` and `Uint8Array` classes are part of the JavaScript standard library, specifically the Typed Array API. These APIs provide an efficient way to work with arrays of numbers (either 32-bit or 8-bit integers) in JavaScript.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would make it difficult to understand for most software engineers.

**Other Alternatives**

Other approaches to instantiating an ArrayBuffer might include:

1. Using a library like `Buffer.js` or `TypedArray.js`, which provide additional functionality and optimizations.
2. Using a native WebAssembly module, which can provide even better performance.
3. Using a different data structure, such as an array buffer view (`TypedArrayView`), to access the ArrayBuffer.

However, these alternatives are likely to be overkill for a simple benchmark like this one, and may not offer significant performance improvements.

Related benchmarks:

Instantiation of ArrayBuffer vs Normal Part 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Uint32 vs Normal vs Uint32Array vs Uint8Array

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result