Benchmark: TypedArray vs Array

Script Preparation code:

uint32Array = new Uint32Array(1e5);
simpleArray = new Array(1e5);
temp = 0;
for(let i = 0; i < 1e5; i++) {
  uint32Array[i] = simpleArray[i] = Math.floor(Math.random() * (2 << 32));
}

Tests:

uint32 array random get
temp = uint32Array[Math.floor(Math.random() * 1e5)];
simple array random get
temp = simpleArray[Math.floor(Math.random() * 1e5)];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
uint32 array random get
simple array random get

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:146.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/146.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 146 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
uint32 array random get	91579664.0 Ops/sec
simple array random get	88155280.0 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 benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach.

**What is being tested:**

The benchmark compares two JavaScript data structures: TypedArray (`uint32Array`) and Array (`simpleArray`). The test cases measure how long it takes to retrieve a random element from each array using the `Math.floor(Math.random() * (2 << 32))` expression, which generates a random integer between 0 and 2^32-1.

**Options compared:**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **TypedArray (`uint32Array`)**: TypedArrays are a family of binary data structures that provide performance benefits by using native memory allocation and caching. They are similar to regular arrays but with some additional features, such as support for typed elements.
2. **Regular Array (`simpleArray`)**: Regular arrays are the most basic type of array in JavaScript and are used extensively throughout the browser's codebase.

**Pros/Cons:**

* **TypedArray (uint32Array)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Generally faster execution times due to native memory allocation and caching.
		- Can provide better performance for large datasets and computationally intensive operations.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires more complex initialization code, as it needs to specify the element type.
		- May not be supported in older browsers or environments with limited support for typed arrays.
* **Regular Array (simpleArray)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Easier to use and initialize, as no additional configuration is required.
		- Wide browser support, including older versions of Chrome and Firefox.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower than TypedArrays due to the overhead of JavaScript's dynamic typing system.

**Library usage:**

In the benchmark preparation code, the `Math.random()` function is used, which relies on the Web Workers API or a polyfill (not explicitly mentioned in the provided code). If your environment doesn't support `Math.random()`, you'll need to use an alternative method, such as `Date.now()` with a modulo operation.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code is straightforward and relies on standard JavaScript constructs.

**Other alternatives:**

If you want to explore other data structures for performance-critical workloads, consider the following:

* **Int8Array`, `Uint16Array`, `Float32Array`, and `Float64Array`: These are similar to TypedArrays but provide support for smaller or larger numeric types.
* **Map` objects**: These can be used as a drop-in replacement for arrays in many cases, especially when working with large datasets. However, they may not provide the same performance benefits as TypedArrays.

Keep in mind that while these alternatives might offer better performance in specific scenarios, they often come with trade-offs in terms of syntax complexity, browser support, or ease of use.

For this particular benchmark, using TypedArray (`uint32Array`) is likely to be the best choice due to its potential performance benefits and widespread support across modern browsers.

Related benchmarks:

TypedArray vs Array (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: uint32 array random get vs simple array random get

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

uint32 array random get

simple array random get

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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