Benchmark: TypedArray set() vs setter performance

Script Preparation code:

var typedArray = new Uint8Array(100000).fill(0);

Tests:

TypedArray set()
for (let i=0; i<typedArray.length; i++) { typedArray.set(typedArray[i] + 1, i); }
TypedArray setter
for (let i=0; i<typedArray.length; i++) { typedArray[i] = typedArray[i] + 1; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
TypedArray set()
TypedArray setter

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
TypedArray set()	53.1 Ops/sec
TypedArray setter	5132.9 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 benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is represented by two test cases:

1. `TypedArray set()`: This test case measures the performance of using the `set()` method to update individual elements in a TypedArray (an array of numbers with a specific data type).
2. `TypedArray setter`: This test case measures the performance of updating individual elements directly on the TypedArray without using the `set()` method.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two options are compared:

1. Using the `set()` method to update individual elements.
2. Updating individual elements directly on the TypedArray.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Using the `set()` method**: This approach has several advantages:
	+ It's a more explicit way of updating elements, making it easier to reason about the code.
	+ It may be more efficient because it allows for optimization by the browser's engine.
	However, this approach also has some disadvantages:
	+ It may introduce additional overhead due to the function call and parameter passing.
	+ The `set()` method is not optimized for updating individual elements, which can lead to slower performance compared to direct updates.
* **Updating directly on the TypedArray**: This approach has several advantages:
	+ It's a more direct way of updating elements, reducing the overhead of function calls and parameter passing.
	+ It may be faster because it allows for better optimization by the browser's engine.
However, this approach also has some disadvantages:
	+ It requires knowledge of the TypedArray API and its internal implementation details.
	+ The code may become more complex and harder to maintain.

**Library**

In both test cases, no specific libraries are used. However, the `TypedArray` class is a part of the JavaScript standard library, specifically defined in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. Both test cases use only standard JavaScript features.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to this benchmark, here are a few options:

* **Manual array iteration**: Instead of using the `set()` method or direct updates on the TypedArray, you could manually iterate over the array elements and perform the update operations.
* **TypedArray methods with caching**: You could use TypedArray methods like `fill()`, `map()`, or `reduce()` with caching to optimize performance.
* **Native WebAssembly implementation**: If you're targeting modern browsers that support WebAssembly, you could implement the benchmark using native WebAssembly code, which may offer better performance.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely require significant changes to the benchmark and its test cases.

Related benchmarks:

TypedArray set() vs setter performance (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: TypedArray set() vs TypedArray setter

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

TypedArray set()

TypedArray setter

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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