Benchmark: slice vs subarray vs set 2

Script Preparation code:

var data = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9];
var f32 = new Float32Array(data);

Tests:

subarray set
var copy = new Float32Array(32).set(4, f32.subarray(10, 20));
slice set
var copy = new Float32Array(32).set(4, f32.slice(10, 20));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
subarray set
slice set

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.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided benchmark is comparing three approaches to create a subset of an array: `slice`, `subarray`, and `set`. The test case uses a large dataset stored in a Float32Array, which is a typed array that stores 32-bit floating-point numbers.

**Options being compared:**

1. **`slice()`**: Returns a new array that contains a section of the original array.
2. **`subarray()`**: Returns a new typed array that contains a section of the original array.
3. **`set()`**: Sets the values in a new typed array to match the values in the original array.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

* `slice()`: Pros:
	+ Easy to read and understand.
	+ Works well for small arrays.
Cons:
	+ Creates a new, untyped array (Array), which can lead to performance issues.
	+ May not be optimized by JavaScript engines for large arrays.
* `subarray()`**: Pros:
	+ Faster than `slice()` for large arrays, as it works directly with typed arrays.
	+ More memory-efficient than `slice()`, as it doesn't create a new untyped array.
Cons:
	+ Less intuitive to read and understand compared to `slice()`.
	+ May not work in older browsers that don't support typed arrays.
* `set()`**: Pros:
	+ Fastest of the three, as it works directly with the underlying buffer of the Float32Array.
	+ Most memory-efficient, as it only sets a subset of values without creating new arrays.
Cons:
	+ Less intuitive to read and understand compared to `slice()` or `subarray()`.
	+ May not work in older browsers that don't support typed arrays.

**Library used:**

The benchmark uses the `Float32Array` class from the JavaScript standard library, which is a typed array that stores 32-bit floating-point numbers. This library provides a fast and efficient way to manipulate numerical data in JavaScript.

No other libraries are mentioned in the provided code or benchmark definition.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

The benchmark uses a special syntax for creating a subset of an array called "substring access" (introduced in ECMAScript 2015). This allows accessing a portion of an array using square brackets `[]`, like `arr[10]`. However, this syntax is only supported in modern browsers that support ECMAScript 2015 or later.

The benchmark code uses `subarray()` and `slice()`, which are supported in most modern browsers. The `set()` method uses the typed array's underlying buffer, which is not dependent on this special syntax.

In summary, MeasureThat.net is comparing three approaches to create a subset of an array: `slice()`, `subarray()`, and `set()`. Each approach has its pros and cons, and the benchmark aims to determine which one is the fastest and most memory-efficient for large arrays.

Related benchmarks:

slice vs subarray vs set 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: subarray set vs slice set

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

subarray set

slice set

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):