Benchmark: Three.js vector copy proposal benchmark

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/three.js/84/three.js" integrity="sha256-FlZMxx4ovIzb9UVKM4+xrQqIDgW2o1aEDVRXANdMpZU=" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>

Script Preparation code:

vec2 = new THREE.Vector2()

vec3 = new THREE.Vector3()

vec3.proposedCopy = function(v) {

	if ("x" in v) this.x = v.x;
	if ("y" in v) this.y = v.y;
	if ("z" in v) this.z = v.z;

	return this;
}

Tests:

Current copy
vec3.copy(vec2)
Proposed copy
vec3.proposedCopy(vec2)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Current copy
Proposed copy

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/109.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/95.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Opera 95 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Current copy

188.6M/s

Proposed copy

172.3M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Current copy	188,562,992 Ops/sec
Proposed copy	172,307,120 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two test cases: "Current copy" and "Proposed copy". The benchmark is related to three.js, a JavaScript library for creating and displaying 3D graphics in the browser. Specifically, it tests the performance of copying vectors between `THREE.Vector2` (a 2D vector) and `THREE.Vector3` (a 3D vector).

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines two variables: `vec2` and `vec3`, both instances of `THREE.Vector2` and `THREE.Vector3`, respectively. It also defines a function `vec3.proposedCopy` that takes a `THREE.Vector2` object as input and attempts to copy its properties (`x`, `y`, and `z`) to the corresponding fields in the `THREE.Vector3` object.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a reference to the latest version of three.js, which is required for the benchmark to work.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Current copy**: This test case calls the built-in `copy()` method on the `vec3` object, passing the `vec2` object as an argument.
2. **Proposed copy**: This test case calls the custom `proposedCopy()` function defined in the script preparation code, passing the `vec2` object as an argument.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

The built-in `copy()` method is likely to be faster because it's a optimized implementation provided by three.js. However, this approach may not be suitable for all use cases, such as when you need more control over the copying process.

The custom `proposedCopy()` function, on the other hand, provides more flexibility but may introduce overhead due to the additional function call and branching.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark measures the number of executions per second, which is a common metric for performance testing.
* The test uses a real-world browser (Chrome 97) to simulate user interactions.
* The benchmark runs on desktop platforms only, which may limit its relevance to mobile or other environments.

**Alternatives**

If you were to modify this benchmark or create new ones, you might consider:

1. Using different three.js versions or configurations to see how performance changes over time.
2. Adding more test cases for different vector sizes (e.g., `THREE.Vector4`).
3. Incorporating other libraries or frameworks that interact with three.js, such as physics engines or animation systems.
4. Measuring additional metrics, like memory usage or CPU utilization, to get a more comprehensive understanding of the system's performance.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark definition and script preparation code.

Three.js vector copy proposal benchmark (version: 2) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `Current copy vs Proposed copy`

Created: 9 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Current copy

Proposed copy

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Three.js vector copy proposal benchmark (version: 2) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: Current copy vs Proposed copy

Created: 9 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Current copy

Proposed copy

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Current copy vs Proposed copy`