Benchmark: array vs float32array withoutconversion

Script Preparation code:

function getRandomInt(max) {
  return Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.floor(max));
}
var a = [...Array(10000)].map(_ => Math.random(1000000));
var ta = (new Float32Array(10000)).map(_ => Math.random(1000000));

Tests:

array sort
a.sort();
typedArray sort
ta.sort();
array i/o
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) { a[i] = a[i] + 1; }
typedArray i/o
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) { ta[i] = ta[i] + 1; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array sort
typedArray sort
array i/o
typedArray i/o

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which includes the script preparation code, HTML preparation code (which is empty in this case), and an array of individual test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition specifies two types of arrays: regular `Array` and `Float32Array`. Both are used to store random integers between 0 and 1 million. The script preparation code initializes these arrays, populates them with random values, and then creates two functions: `getRandomInt(max)` for generating random integers within a specified range, and two map functions to populate the arrays.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Regular Array (`a`)**:
	* Uses the standard JavaScript `Array` object.
	* Populates with random integers using the `map()` method.
	* Employs basic operations like sorting and incrementing elements within a loop.
2. **Typed Array (`ta`)** (specifically, `Float32Array`):
	* Utilizes the typed array API, which provides more efficient data storage and access compared to standard arrays.
	* Populates with random floats using the `map()` method.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

Regular Array (`a`):

Pros:

* Wide browser support and compatibility.
* Easy to implement and understand.

Cons:

* May incur performance overhead due to the overhead of JavaScript objects and dynamic typing.
* Can be slower for large-scale data processing compared to typed arrays.

Typed Array (`ta`) (specifically, `Float32Array`):

Pros:

* Provides more efficient memory usage and access patterns, leading to better performance in certain operations like sorting.
* Better suited for numerical computations and high-performance applications.

Cons:

* May require additional setup or imports for compatibility across older browsers.
* Can be less intuitive to work with for developers without prior experience with typed arrays.

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case measures the execution time of a specific operation on both regular array (`a`) and typed array (`ta`):

1. **Array Sort**: Measures the sorting performance of `a.sort()`.
2. **Array I/O (Increment)**: Measures the incrementing performance within a loop for elements in `a`.
3. **Typed Array I/O (Increment)**: Measures the incrementing performance within a loop for elements in `ta`.

These test cases provide insights into the relative performance differences between regular arrays and typed arrays under specific scenarios.

**Library Used**

None, as this benchmark definition uses only built-in JavaScript features and does not rely on any external libraries.

Related benchmarks:

array vs float32array withoutconversion (version: 0)

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

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array sort

typedArray sort

array i/o

typedArray i/o

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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