Benchmark: Array vs ArrayBuffer

Script Preparation code:

const arr = new Array(100000);
const buff = new ArrayBuffer(100000)
const view = new Uint8Array(buff);

Tests:

Array
for (let i; i < 100000; i++) { arr[i] = 255; }
ArrayBuffer
for (let i; i < 100000; i++) { view[i] = 255; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array
ArrayBuffer

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
Array	614166784.0 Ops/sec
ArrayBuffer	616439872.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two data structures in JavaScript: Arrays and ArrayBuffer objects. The test cases are designed to write 255 values to each array/index of the respective data structure (Array or Uint8Array) using a `for` loop.

**Options compared:**

Two options are compared:

1. **Arrays**: Specifically, using a regular Array object (`const arr = new Array(100000);`) to store and manipulate data.
2. **ArrayBuffer objects with Uint8Array views**: Using an ArrayBuffer object (`const buff = new ArrayBuffer(100000)`) and creating a view of the buffer as a Uint8Array array (`const view = new Uint8Array(buff)`). This approach uses less memory than using a regular Array, but may have performance implications.

**Pros and Cons:**

**Arrays:**

* Pros:
	+ Easier to use and understand for most developers.
	+ Provides a clear and consistent API.
	+ Can be used with various methods (e.g., `push`, `pop`, `forEach`).
* Cons:
	+ May consume more memory, especially when dealing with large datasets.

**ArrayBuffer objects with Uint8Array views:**

* Pros:
	+ Uses less memory compared to using regular Arrays.
	+ Can be useful in situations where memory efficiency is critical (e.g., image processing, audio analysis).
* Cons:
	+ Requires a deeper understanding of the underlying data structures and APIs.
	+ May have performance implications due to the overhead of creating views.

**Library:**

The benchmark uses the JavaScript built-in `Array` and `ArrayBuffer` objects, as well as the `Uint8Array` view. These are standard API components in JavaScript and do not require any external libraries.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There is no explicit mention of special features or syntax in this benchmark. The code uses standard JavaScript syntax and does not rely on any specific features like async/await, Promises, or generators.

**Other alternatives:**

If you were to write a similar benchmark using other data structures or libraries, some options could include:

* **Typed arrays**: Instead of `ArrayBuffer` objects, you might compare the performance of typed arrays (e.g., `Int8Array`, `Uint16Array`) with regular Arrays.
* **Data views**: You could also explore the performance difference between creating views on a typed array versus using a regular Array object.
* **Native data structures**: Depending on the specific requirements and constraints, you might consider using native data structures provided by the browser or JavaScript runtime (e.g., `WebAssembly`, `NativeArray`).
* **External libraries**: If you wanted to compare performance with external libraries like NumJS, weka.js, or other numerical computing libraries, you could use those in your benchmark.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely change the nature of the comparison and might require modifications to the benchmark code.

Related benchmarks:

Array vs ArrayBuffer (version: 0)

Both has the same speed almost (Array is more faster) ArrayBuffer is just more memory efficient

Comparing performance of: Array vs ArrayBuffer

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array

ArrayBuffer

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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