Benchmark: EcmaScript6 Uint32Array vs regular JS array

Script Preparation code:

var int32 = new Uint32Array(100);
var regular = [];

for(var i=0;i<100;i++){
  int32[i] = i;
  regular.push(i);
}

Tests:

Uint32Array
var sum = 0; for(var i=0;i<100;i++){ sum = sum + int32[i]; }
Plain JS array
var sum = 0; for(var i=0;i<100;i++){ sum = sum + regular[i]; }

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 11 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 6 runs

Uint32Array

342K/s

Plain JS array

341K/s

View exact numbers

✓ Uint32Array: 342,447 ops/sec
• Plain JS array: 341,465 ops/sec

Firefox 5 runs

Uint32Array

16.9M/s

Plain JS array

15.8M/s

View exact numbers

✓ Uint32Array: 16,944,440 ops/sec
• Plain JS array: 15,754,358 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Uint32Array
Plain JS array

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:143.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/143.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 143 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Uint32Array

19.8M/s

Plain JS array

19.5M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Uint32Array	19,782,276 Ops/sec
Plain JS array	19,484,088 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help explain the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test case compares the performance of using `Uint32Array` with regular JavaScript arrays (also known as plain JavaScript arrays) in two different scenarios:

1. Creating an array and pushing elements into it
2. Iterating over an array to calculate a sum

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we have two options being compared:

a. **Uint32Array**: A typed array that provides efficient storage and manipulation of 32-bit unsigned integers.
b. **Plain JavaScript Array**: An array data structure built into the JavaScript language that can store any type of value.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Uint32Array:**

Pros:

* Offers faster performance compared to plain arrays for certain operations, such as storing and manipulating large amounts of numerical data.
* Provides better memory management and reduces memory allocation overhead.

Cons:

* Can be less convenient to use for general-purpose array operations due to its typed nature.
* May require more explicit handling of edge cases (e.g., null or undefined values).

**Plain JavaScript Array:**

Pros:

* Is generally easier to use and more flexible than Uint32Array, making it suitable for a wide range of applications.
* Supports dynamic addition and removal of elements.

Cons:

* Can be slower compared to Uint32Array for operations involving numerical data, especially when dealing with large arrays.

**Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the specific requirements of your use case. If you're working with numerical data or need high-performance storage and manipulation capabilities, `Uint32Array` might be a better choice. However, if you need more flexibility in terms of data types or are dealing with non-numerical data, plain JavaScript arrays might be more suitable.

**Library Used**

In the provided benchmark, there is no explicit library mentioned that's being used outside of the built-in JavaScript language features.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There isn't any special JavaScript feature or syntax explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, note that modern JavaScript also includes features like async/await, `let` and `const` declarations, classes, and more, which can impact performance and behavior.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to arrays in JavaScript, consider:

* **TypedArray objects**: These provide similar functionality to Uint32Array but with a more dynamic type system.
* **BigInt**: For large integers that exceed the range of 32-bit or 64-bit unsigned integers.
* **Data views**: Allow you to interact with typed array data as if it were an object, providing a different API than regular arrays.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not always offer better performance compared to Uint32Array and plain arrays.

EcmaScript6 Uint32Array vs regular JS array (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `Uint32Array vs Plain JS array`

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Uint32Array

Plain JS array

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 11 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 6 runs

Firefox 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

EcmaScript6 Uint32Array vs regular JS array (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: Uint32Array vs Plain JS array

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Uint32Array

Plain JS array

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 11 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 6 runs

Firefox 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Uint32Array vs Plain JS array`