Benchmark: Maping numeric vs f32 vs f64

Maping numeric vs f32 vs f64 (version: 0)

compare the map speed of an array of random true/false values compared to an ArrayBuffer with a uInt8 view of 0 or 1. The results are that the typed array is much much faster. There are two possible reasons I can think of for this. 1) JavaScript boolean type size of 4Bytes where as an element of a uInt8 array is actually 1Byte. 2) The ArrayBuffer is allocating contiguous memory resulting in a better cache hit ratio.

Comparing performance of: numeric array vs Float64Array vs Float32Array

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Script Preparation code:

const size = 1024;

var buffer64 = new ArrayBuffer(size*8);
var buffer32 = new ArrayBuffer(size*4);
var f64View = new Float32Array(buffer64, 0, size);
var f32View = new Float32Array(buffer32, 0, size);

var numericArray = [];
for (let i=0; i<size; i++) {
  const someVal = Math.random();
  numericArray[i] = someVal;
  f64View[i] = someVal;
  f32View[i] = someVal;
}

Tests:

numeric array
const resultArray = numericArray.map(s => { return (s == 1); });
Float64Array
const resultArray = f64View.map(s => { return (s == 1); });
Float32Array
const resultArray = f32View.map(s => { return (s == 1); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
numeric array
Float64Array
Float32Array

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:130.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/130.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 130 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
numeric array	132656.0 Ops/sec
Float64Array	163052.5 Ops/sec
Float32Array	161645.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark tests the performance difference between three approaches:

1. **Numeric Array**: Using the `map()` method on an array of random true/false values (`numericArray`).
2. **Float64Array**: Using the `map()` method on a typed array with 8-byte elements ( Float64 type), where each element represents either 0 or 1.
3. **Float32Array**: Using the `map()` method on a typed array with 4-byte elements (Float32 type).

**What is tested:**

The benchmark measures the execution speed of the `map()` method for each approach, comparing the number of executions per second.

**Options compared:**

* **Data Type**: The choice between an array of true/false values and a typed array ( Float64 or Float32) with either 8-byte or 4-byte elements.
* **Memory Layout**: The memory layout of the data structures used in each approach. In this case, the typed arrays have contiguous memory allocation, which might lead to better cache performance.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Numeric Array**:
	* Pros: Simple to set up, easy to understand.
	* Cons: Might be slower due to JavaScript's boolean type being 4 bytes, leading to more cache misses.
2. **Float64Array**:
	* Pros: Can take advantage of the smaller memory footprint and potentially better cache performance.
	* Cons: Requires setting up a typed array with Float64 elements, which might require additional code.
3. **Float32Array**:
	* Pros: Similar to Float64Array but with an even smaller memory footprint.
	* Cons: Requires setting up a typed array with Float32 elements, similar to Float64Array.

**Library and Purpose:**

The `map()` method is a built-in JavaScript function that applies a specified transformation to each element of an array. In this benchmark, the `map()` method is used to create a new array with the same number of elements as the original array, but with transformed values (either true or false).

**Special JS feature:**

There are no special JavaScript features mentioned in the benchmark definition.

**Other alternatives:**

To further compare the performance of these approaches, other variations could be tested:

* Using `forEach()` instead of `map()`.
* Using a different data structure, such as an `ArrayBuffer` with a Uint8Array view.
* Comparing the performance of different JavaScript engines or browsers.

Keep in mind that the specific options and alternatives will depend on the goals of the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Maping numeric vs f32 vs f64 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: numeric array vs Float64Array vs Float32Array

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

numeric array

Float64Array

Float32Array

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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