Benchmark: DataView vs Uint32Array debunking myth

Script Preparation code:

var size = 4 * 4096;
var buf = new ArrayBuffer(size);
var view = new DataView(buf);
var byte = new Uint32Array(buf);

var data = [];

for (let i = 0; i < size; i++) {
	data[i] = 100*Math.random();
}

Tests:

DataView
for (let i = 0; i < size / 4; ++i) { view.setUint32(i, data[i]); }
Uint32
for (let i; i < size / 4; ++i) { byte[i] = data[i]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
DataView
Uint32

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 18_3_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) FxiOS/135.2 Mobile/15E148 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 18 on iOS 18.3.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
DataView	15090.0 Ops/sec
Uint32	686710272.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases, each comparing a different approach for storing and manipulating integer data in JavaScript: `DataView` and `Uint32Array`.

**Options compared:**

1. **DataView**: A binary view on an ArrayBuffer that allows direct access to its underlying memory.
2. **Uint32Array**: An array of 32-bit unsigned integers, which is a more traditional way of storing and manipulating integer data in JavaScript.

The test cases aim to debunk the myth that `DataView` is slower than `Uint32Array` for simple integer operations.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **DataView**:
	* Pros:
		+ Allows direct access to memory, which can be beneficial for low-level optimizations or performance-critical code.
		+ Can provide better cache locality and reduced overhead compared to traditional array-based approaches.
	* Cons:
		+ May require more boilerplate code due to its binary view nature.
		+ Some operations might not be supported natively by `DataView`, requiring additional workarounds or polyfills.
2. **Uint32Array**:
	* Pros:
		+ More traditional and familiar approach for many developers.
		+ Less overhead compared to `DataView` due to its array-based nature.
	* Cons:
		+ May not take full advantage of low-level optimizations available with `DataView`.
		+ Cache locality might be reduced, leading to slower performance in certain cases.

**Library and purpose:**

In the provided benchmark definition JSON, there is no explicit library mentioned. However, it's worth noting that `DataView` is a built-in JavaScript object that allows direct access to ArrayBuffer memory views.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives:**

If you were to implement this benchmark using other approaches, some alternatives could be:

1. **Typed Arrays**: Instead of `Uint32Array`, you could use other typed arrays like `Int32Array` or `Float64Array`.
2. **Native Web Workers**: You could offload the data manipulation and storage operations to a separate web worker process to explore the performance implications.
3. **Custom Buffer Management**: Instead of using `DataView` or `Uint32Array`, you could implement your own custom buffer management system to optimize performance.

Keep in mind that each alternative would require significant changes to the benchmark code and might not accurately represent the original intent of comparing `DataView` and `Uint32Array`.

Related benchmarks:

DataView vs Uint32Array debunking myth (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: DataView vs Uint32

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

DataView

Uint32

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):