Benchmark: Compare TODO: Remove benchmark

Script Preparation code:

var int16 = new Int16Array(100000);
var regular = [];

for(var i=0;i<100;i++){
  int16[i] = i;
  regular.push(i);
}

Tests:

Int16Array
var sum = 0; for(var i=0;i<100000;i++){ sum = sum + int16[i]; }
Plain JS array
var sum = 0; for(var i=0;i<100;i++){ sum = sum + regular[i]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Int16Array
Plain JS array

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 explanation.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents two test cases, each comparing different approaches to perform an addition operation: one using `Int16Array` and another using a plain JavaScript array.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Int16Array**: A typed array that provides a fixed-size buffer for storing integer data. It's designed to be more memory-efficient than regular arrays, especially when dealing with large integers.
2. **Plain JS Array**: A regular array that can store any type of value, including numbers.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Int16Array**:
	+ Pros:
		- Memory efficiency: `Int16Array` is designed to reduce memory allocation overhead by providing a fixed-size buffer for storing integers.
		- Performance: Typed arrays can be faster than regular arrays because they avoid the overhead of dynamic type checking.
	+ Cons:
		- Limited data types: `Int16Array` can only store 16-bit integers, which may not be suitable for all use cases.
* **Plain JS Array**:
	+ Pros:
		- Flexibility: Regular arrays can store any type of value, making them more versatile.
	+ Cons:
		- Memory overhead: Regular arrays require dynamic memory allocation, which can lead to slower performance and higher memory usage.

**Library Used**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON. However, `Int16Array` is a built-in JavaScript typed array implementation that's available since ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The test case doesn't explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's inherent to the language itself.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other options, here are a few alternatives:

* **ArrayBuffer**: A typed array implementation that provides more control over memory allocation and data types.
* **Float32Array**, `Int32Array`, etc.: Other typed arrays for storing floating-point numbers or larger integers.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided script preparation code is used to create two arrays, one using `Int16Array` and the other using a plain JavaScript array. Both arrays are populated with values from 0 to 99 (not 100, as mentioned in the JSON).

The test name "Plain JS array" refers to the first test case, which uses a regular array for the addition operation.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show that Chrome 96 executes the plain JavaScript array addition operation at a rate of approximately 126,153 executions per second, while the `Int16Array` approach is faster with around 130,283 executions per second.

Related benchmarks:

Compare TODO: Remove benchmark (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Int16Array vs Plain JS array

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Int16Array

Plain JS array

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):