Benchmark: Uint8Array Array.from VS join split

Script Preparation code:

const uint8 = new Uint8Array([65, 67, 68, 69, 70]);

Tests:

Array from
const uint8 = new Uint8Array([65, 67, 68, 69, 70]); Array.from(uint8).map(u => String.fromCharCode(u))
join split
const uint8 = new Uint8Array([65, 67, 68, 69, 70]); uint8.join().split(',').map(u => String.fromCharCode(u))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array from
join split

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 114 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array from	382625.9 Ops/sec
join split	320188.5 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 its test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark, "Uint8Array Array.from VS join split", is designed to compare two approaches for converting a Uint8Array to an array of characters in JavaScript. The benchmark uses a small input array containing ASCII codes of letters (65-70).

**Approaches Compared**

There are two test cases:

1. **Array.from**: This approach creates a new array from the Uint8Array using the `Array.from()` method.
2. **join() + split()**: This approach uses the `join()` method to concatenate the characters as strings, followed by splitting the resulting string into an array using the `split()` method.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Array.from**:
	* Pros: Efficient, readable, and concise.
	* Cons: May not be optimized for performance in certain browsers or environments.
2. **join() + split()**:
	* Pros: Can be faster due to browser optimizations (e.g., using UTF-16 encoding).
	* Cons: May require more memory allocation, and the `split()` method can create an array of strings rather than individual characters.

**Library Used**

There is no explicit library used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may optimize their string manipulation functions (e.g., `Array.from()`, `join()`) using built-in libraries or techniques that are not exposed to developers.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard ECMAScript 2022 syntax. However, it's possible that certain browsers may optimize their execution of these tests due to specific language features or engine-specific optimizations.

**Other Considerations**

When writing benchmarks like this one, consider the following:

* **Input size and complexity**: Varying input sizes can help identify performance differences between approaches.
* **Browser and platform variations**: Testing on multiple platforms (e.g., desktop, mobile) and browsers can provide more comprehensive results.
* **Optimization techniques**: Consider using optimization techniques like caching or memoization to reduce overhead in your benchmark.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider:

1. **Using native buffers**: Instead of working with Uint8Arrays, try using native buffers (e.g., Buffer.from()) and see if they provide better performance.
2. **Parallel testing**: Run multiple test cases concurrently to see how the different approaches scale under load.
3. **Other string manipulation methods**: Experiment with other methods like `reduce()`, `forEach()`, or `map()` to compare their performance.

Keep in mind that the goal of a benchmark is to provide a fair comparison between different approaches, not necessarily to optimize for absolute performance.

Related benchmarks:

Uint8Array Array.from VS join split (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array from vs join split

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array from

join split

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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