Benchmark: Uint8Array4685231156412

Script Preparation code:

var data = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9];
var f32 = new Uint8Array(data);

Tests:

sub
var copy = f32.subarray(10, 20);
slice
var copy = f32.slice(10, 20);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
sub
slice

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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing two different methods to extract a subset of bytes from a `Uint8Array` in JavaScript:

1. `subarray(start, end)`: This method creates a new `Uint8Array` that contains the specified range of bytes from the original array.
2. `slice(start, end)`: This method also creates a new `Uint8Array` with the specified range of bytes from the original array.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is measuring the performance difference between these two methods on different browsers and devices. The test cases are designed to extract a specific subset of bytes from the `f32` array, which is initialized as a `Uint8Array` with a large amount of data (approximately 1.4 million bytes).

**Options compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of:

* `subarray(start, end)` vs `slice(start, end)`
	+ Both methods are used to extract a subset of bytes from the `f32` array.
	+ The main difference lies in the implementation details: `subarray` creates a new array with the specified range of bytes, while `slice` returns a view of the original array.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`subarray(start, end)`**:
	+ Pros:
		- Can be more efficient because it avoids creating an intermediate view (like `slice` does).
		- Allows for more control over the resulting array.
	+ Cons:
		- Creates a new array with the specified range of bytes, which can lead to unnecessary memory allocations and copies.
* **`slice(start, end)`**:
	+ Pros:
		- Returns a view of the original array, avoiding unnecessary memory allocations and copies.
		- Can be more convenient for some use cases, as it allows for easier manipulation of the resulting data.
	+ Cons:
		- May incur additional overhead due to the creation of an intermediate view.

**Library and Purpose**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or individual test cases. However, `Uint8Array` is a built-in JavaScript array type that provides efficient storage for unboxed integers (i.e., integers that do not have a fractional part).

**Special JS feature/syntax**

The benchmark does not appear to use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's typically available in modern browsers.

**Other alternatives**

If `subarray` and `slice` are not suitable for your specific use case, you might consider alternative methods:

* **`Array.prototype.slice()`**: This method creates a shallow copy of the specified range of elements from the original array.
* **`Array.prototype.subarray()`**: Similar to `slice`, but it allows for more control over the resulting array (i.e., it returns an object instead of an array).
* **Custom implementation**: Depending on your specific requirements, you might need to implement a custom method for extracting subsets of bytes from a `Uint8Array`.

Keep in mind that the choice of implementation will depend on the trade-offs between performance, memory usage, and code complexity.

Related benchmarks:

Uint8Array4685231156412 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: sub vs slice

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

sub

slice

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):